Preamble

The House met at half-past Two O'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Local Enterprise Agencies

Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of local enterprise agencies.

The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): There are now almost 400 local enterprise agencies in the United Kingdom. My Department, through the local enterprise agency grant scheme, encourages the development of viable agencies in England. One hundred and sixty-eight agencies were supported in 1986–87.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Does he agree that local enterprise agencies are necessarily brought about as a result of a partnership between local interests, local authorities and, particularly, chambers of commerce? Does he also agree that bringing together the practical skills and knowledge of those individuals and organisations results in the creation of much new business and many new jobs, as is the case in the Leeds business venture?

Mr. Cope: Yes, indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend. The agencies are valuable institutions which improve the survival rate of small firms which consult them, as was shown in a recent report. The Leeds business venture is a long-established and well-supported agency, which receives our grant.

Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister recognise that many local enterprise agencies in areas such as mine, which no longer benefit from inner-city policy or other Government policies to push money into areas of high unemployment, are worried about their future and about future money to enable them to create and secure jobs in places such as Derwentside, which, since 1979, has suffered enormous job losses? The agencies have done a good job, but they need Government support to continue it.

Mr. Cope: I recognise the concern which the hon. Lady expresses and which some of the agencies have expressed to me. The grant scheme to which I referred is intended as

a pump-priming scheme to help agencies get going and develop. It is not the only way in which we assist them —there are others—and I am conscious of the case that the hon. Lady has made.

Mr. Bright: Does my hon. Friend agree that enterprise agencies have been a wonderful catalyst for bringing together management expertise from the larger companies to help the smaller ones? Have they not been one of the major contributions that have enabled the many start-ups that have taken place to continue, flourish and develop into medium-sized companies?

Mr. Cope: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. As I said earlier, the survival rate has improved a great deal. According to the report that I mentioned, only one in six of the companies that have had advice from enterprise agencies fail. The agencies also do a tremendous job in helping small firms to develop, and many job; are coming from that.

Tourism

Mr. Hanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the amount of United States tourist dollars earned in 1986.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Slate for Employment (Mr. John Lee): United States visitors to the United Kingdom spent £1,250 million in 1986.

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that 25 years ago both France and Italy individually earned more tourist dollars than the United Kingdom and that now the United Kingdom earns more than both those countries put together. Can he say what steps he has taken to inform the tourist industry about how to live with an extremely weak dollar this year?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right about the trend of increasing United States tourism to the United Kingdom and about the success of the industry. In 1986 we had a US-UK tourism surplus of £717 million. During the first nine months of this year there was an increase of about 25 per cent. in the number of United States tourists visiting Britain. At the present time the number of tourists from the United States is holding up well, but clearly, because of the gyrations of the financial market and the likelihood of an election in America next year, the industry must be fully alive to the challenge of competition.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister will be aware thai a large proportion of American tourists have been coming into the golden triangle of London-Oxford-Stratford-on-Avon. Because they can probably get better value for money by going to other areas, and especially to Wales, can he say whether the British Tourist Association has come to an agreement with the Wales Tourist Board to increase the promotion of Wales in particular and Britain in general to those in the United States with an interest in Wales?

Mr. Lee: Yes, progress is being made. I fully concur with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments that Wales is an extremely attractive area which has many tourist attractions.

Mr. Bill Walker: We welcome American tourists, but most of them come to London and we should like them to visit other parts of the country. Will my hon. Friend


look carefully at that? What are his Department and the tourist boards doing to encourage visitors to go from London to Scotland and back to the United States via Prestwick?

Mr. Lee: The British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board are charged with doing everything possible to encourage tourists to move out and visit the regions and not just spend time in the golden triangle and in London. In recent years Scotland has benefited to a considerable extent from tourism.

YTS

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to what proportion of those people completing the YTS in the Truro constituency find full-time paid employment within the next six months.

Mr. Cope: Sixty two per cent. of young people who completed youth training schemes in the district of Carrick between April 1986 and June 1987 were in full-time jobs when surveyed several months later. A further 9 per cent. were in part-time jobs. I regret that separate figures for Truro are not available.

Mr. Taylor: I am sure the Minister agrees that those figures are welcome and that the increasing quality and take-up of YTS courses in my area is a very good thing. However, given the Government's plan to force all young people to go on to YTS or face the withdrawal of benefit, is it not likely that people who are unwilling and unresponsive to the courses will be forced on to them? Not only will that not help people who do not care to make use of the scheme, but it will hurt the many other people who have a constructive attitude and wish to get the most that they can out of the scheme.

Mr. Cope: That is not necessarily correct. Already, almost everyone in that positon is offered a place on the YTS. Youth unemployment has greatly improved recently. There are now fewer unemployed 16 and 17-yearold school leavers than at any time since 1974. I do not think that our new proposals will have the effects that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend compare the YTS to its predecessor, the youth opportunities programme, which was introduced by the Lib-Lab pact Government? Does he not agree that the youth training scheme is far superior and far more successful in giving training to young people?

Mr. Cope: Yes, it is much more successful in every respect. Well over 400,000 young people are currently being trained under it.

Tourism

Mr. John Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to encourage regional tourist boards to focus on shopping as a major element in tourist spending.

Mr. Lee: The English Tourist Board's development strategy "A Vision for England" identifies leisure and speciality shopping as an important growth opportunity for tourism, particularly in towns and cities. The ETB is actively working with the regional tourist boards and others to encourage such developments.

Mr. Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that spending on such items as specialist shopping, food and drink is of crucial importance to employment not only in the United Kingdom as a whole but in cities such as Winchester? Can he please give the House an estimate of the proportion of total tourist spending for which this type of activity accounts and, therefore, give us a target at which we can aim for spending on high-quality goods, food and drinks?

Mr. Lee: I know that my hon. Friend is keen to encourage tourists to stay overnight in Winchester.
We estimate that about 40 per cent. of the money spent by overseas visitors goes on shopping, food and drink. I certainly support all that my hon. Friend is doing to draw to the attention of visitors the attractions and heritage of Winchester— including King Arthur's round table and Winchester cathedral. Of course, the money spent by tourists will provide every opportunity for entrepreneurial retailers and shopkeepers to develop their businesses.

Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware of the wonderful things happening in Birmingham at the moment, with the creation of new jobs and investment; in particular the £100 million convention centre, which will attract tourists from all over the world, and the £250 million, 1 million sq ft redevelopment of the city centre and the old Bull Ring, which will provide hundreds of shops and 6,000 new jobs?
When the tourists come, should they not be able to use those new facilities on a Sunday? Therefore, should we reform our trading laws to enable this to happen?

Mr. Lee: As the Minister with responsibility for tourism, I support an extension of Sunday trading. That has always been my personal view and it is also my ministerial position. I support what my hon. Friend said. Birmingham offers tremendous opportunities, and huge developments are coming on stream. I was at the NEC Interbuild exhibition recently and heard some tremendous success stories and good reports about what is happening in the region.

Factory Inspectors

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of factory inspectors; and what was the number in 1979.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): On 1 November 1987 a total of 610 factory inspectors were employed in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 April 1979 the total was 742.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that since 1979 there has been a massive cut in the number of factory inspectors, due to the meanness of the Government, and is that not lamentable, in view of the many lives and the millions of days lost each year through industrial accidents and injuries? Is it not worse still that the Health and Safety Executive has tried to gag people who work for it from pointing out the savage cutbacks by the Government of their services, on the pain of sacking if anybody speaks out? Is it not an attempt by the Government to apply the Peter Wright standard to health and safety at work?

Mr. Nicholls: No, that is not the position. The number of inspectors per 1,000 employees has remained roughly constant since 1979. Having said that, an increase in


inspectors is appropriate and next year there will be an increase of some 60 on the combined number of specialist and non-specialist inspectors. Resources have been allocated for that.
On the other situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, obviously guidance is given on the circumstances in which civil servants have an independent approach to their Members of Parliament. We are aware of the situation that occurred, and the director on that occasion gave general guidance.

Mr. Patnick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that provision will be made for the Health and Safety Commission for an increase in the number of inspectors in 1988–89?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The extra £6·7 million allocated next year will make it possible to fund the extra 60 inspectors to whom I have referred. The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has made it clear that those extra resources will allow those additional inspectors to be appointed.

Mr. Barry Jones: Why did the Government permit cuts in the inspectorate during the 1980s when there were growing worries and fears about asbestos? Why did the cuts take place when there were growing worries about accidents to youngsters on the YTS scheme? Surely the Government in the 1980s have been very complacent.

Mr. Nicholls: No. The hon. Gentleman assumes that one can simply look at the number of inspectors and say that the more inspectors there are, the fewer accidents there will be. That is not true. The number of inspectors per 1,000 employees has remained roughly constant and where there is a necessity for more inspectors, we have made the funding available. As to fatalities, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in recent years the number of fatalities has declined, and in 1986–87 they were at an all-time record low.

Mr. Strang: Is it not disturbing that the Health and Safety Executive in its annual report published this month, admitted that 10,000 work places, which, according to its criteria, are a priority for preventive inspections, were not inspected because of a lack of resources?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman grossly oversimplifies what was of necessity a very detailed report. Essentially, the report was historical. It was looking to the past. As to the future, extra inspectors are being allocated —some 60 in total. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Tourism

Mr. Aspinwall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent by tourists in the six counties of the west country last year.

Mr. Lee: I understand from the English Tourist Board that total estimated spending by tourists in the six counties of the west country in 1986 was £1,650 million.

Mr. Aspinwall: That information is extremely helpful. It obviously means plenty of job opportunities and investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was detrimental to the interests of the west country for Avon county council to withdraw from the West Country tourist board? What benefit does he see in the council's rejoining it?

Mr. Lee: It is a pity that Avon withdrew from the West Country tourist board and we hope that it will rejoin. I think I am right in saying that it is the only county council in England which is not a member of its regional tourist board. Given that Avon has such considerable attractions for tourists, such as the cities of Bath and Bristol, it is really missing out, and I hope that it will reconsider.

Mr. Ron Brown: Will the Minister confirm that many of those so-called tourists come from the north of England and from Scotland looking for jobs? They may or may not have bikes, but they are anxious to have the means to exist as human beings. Does the Minister have anything to say to people in other parts of the United Kingdom who are anxious to contribute to the national well-being, whether or not they are tourists? Can he say anything apart from his nonsensical contribution about tourism?

Mr. Lee: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraging all his constituents to go on holiday from Leith to the west country next year.

Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend recognise that, in seeking to meet the demands of the important tourist industry, ancient cathedral cities such as Salisbury have particular problems? Is he aware that following the decision of the dean and chapter to remove coaches from Salisbury close, two years ago, it is beginning to look as if the only solution which will save Salisbury as a tourist centre is to breach the 13th century closed walls yet again, to make room for a coach park inside them?

Mr. Lee: I cannot give an instant answer to the particular problems of Salisbury, but I am sure that no one would want any city walls to be breached.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister spoke about the attractions of the west country for tourists. Will he tell us about the attractions of tourism for the people of the west country? In the west country, as elsewhere, the tourist industry provides the lowest rates of pay and the longest hours and has the least trade union organisation to protect the workers against excessive exploitation. Apart from uttering platitudes, what will the Minister do about that?

Mr. Lee: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. In terms of job creation, the tourist industry sustains about 1·4 million jobs nationally. No other industry creates jobs at a rate of 1,000 a week, as our tourist and hospitality industries do. Certain conclusions can be drawn from the fact that there is no over-substantial trade union representation in that industry.

Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people feel that although the West Country tourist board does good work, it covers far too large an area, stretching from the Isles of Scilly to Swindon? Will he look at the possibility of devolving part of its budget downward so that county promotional organisations such as the Cornwall tourist board can get a share of that budget?

Mr. Lee: In my discussions with the West. Country tourist board, that point was not raised. It does not consider its area to be too large. However I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Job Training Scheme

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to arrange for people on the job training scheme to have their fares refunded; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cope: Participants on the new job training scheme may claim reimbursement of all travel expenses associated with their training.

Miss Lestor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, is he aware that although the trainees do not have to pay their fares now—that is an innovation, as they had to pay them under the youth training scheme —many still have considerable expenses as they have to pay for their lunch and other expenses out of the very small amount that they receive? Will the Minister consider some way of reimbursing them so that they get the small amount to which they art entitled in total? Many trainees, particularly in my constituency, have to contribute to the budget at home because their parents are unemployed.

Mr. Cope: As the hon. Lady probably knows, we are reviewing the job training scheme and developing it along with the community programme. These matters are under consideration by the Manpower Services Commission at the moment.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister confirm that the DHSS recognises the cost of going to work as being £7 a week —being the cost of fares, the high cost of food away from home, and the cost of protective clothing, which will apply to the job training scheme? Under the new "Benefit Plus" scheme, if the "plus" were £15 a week, it would be only £8 a week in real terms.

Mr. Cope: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point and, as I said, the matter is under consideration.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that JTS has played an important part in the Government's adult training programme and that one of its biggest problems has been the way in which some unions and Left-wing Labour councils have undermined and boycotted it?

Mr. Cope: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's remarks. The job training scheme is playing an important role, but it could play a more important role if more people would co-operate in it.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed; how many are women; and how many men.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): On 8 October 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 2,751,000 — a reduction of almost 500,000 on a year ago. Of these, 848,000 were women and 1,904,000 were men.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that women are heavily discriminated against in employment and that when they come off the unemployment register most get jobs that most other people do not want, which are usually very low paid—for example, in tourism in the west country? Is there not something that we could do to ensure that women have some chance of full-time jobs instead of miserably low-paid, part-time jobs?

Mr. Fowler: I accept almost nothing of what the hon. Gentleman said. In the past 12 months there has been an increase of about 372,000 in the number in work. For women, the increase in those in full-time jobs was more than the increase in those in part-time jobs. However, it is also true that many women prefer to have part-time jobs, and that is shown by many surveys.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of unemployed in Lancaster has fallen steadily and that, more important, the number in employment is steadily increasing? Many are employed in adaptable small firms and many in the tourist industry, which is taking advantage of our natural attractions and historic connections.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a very big increase in employment, and the tourist industry has been one of the major activities involved. It is not right for Opposition Members to criticise that increase and suggest that, somehow, jobs in tourism are not real jobs. Of course they are real jobs, and they are internationally competitive real jobs.

Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State recognise that unemployment is still far too high? Given the present level of unemployment, is it not crazy to have ended the job release scheme? Is it not wrong to say that that scheme has been ended because the number using it has fallen considerably? Should not the Government have been moving in the opposite direction and allowing more people to take early retirement under the job release scheme to make employment available for younger people?

Mr. Fowler: The job release scheme was being applied only to those aged 64 and was having a very marginal impact.
On the unemployment statistics, the fact is that unemployment has come down for 16 months in succession. In the past 12 months the fall in the figures has been the largest on record. It has affected every region of the country and there have been record falls in long-term unemployment and in unemployment among young people. I had very much hoped that the Opposition would welcome that trend.

Mr. William Powell: Is it not a fact that there has been not only an enormous reduction in unemployment this year but a corresponding and greater growth in employment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in each month of 1987 the Corby jobcentre has had a record number of job vacancies? To encourage people to take the jobs that are now available, would it not be sensible for income tax rates to be reduced to reduce some of the disincentives to work?

Mr. Fowler: The last point is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What my hon. Friend has said about the increase in the number in employment is right. The position in this country compares favourably with the EEC average and with countries such as France, Germany and the Netherlands.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State accept that it would be helpful if his Department produced figures which showed the number of people in part-time employment and those in full-time employment? While the new jobs that are being created are welcome, there is genuine concern that they are often part-time jobs


replacing full-time jobs. Rather than exchanges which do not shed light, would it not be helpful if his Department gave us the facts?

Mr. Fowler: The fact of the matter is that we do produce those figures. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who I think leads for the Liberal party on these matters, is not aware of that. I will repeat the figures again. Over the past 12 months, 372,000 new jobs have been created, of which 206,000—the majority—are full-time.

Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom is at its lowest for five years? Will he comment on how he sees the unemployment trends developing in the coming months?

Mr. Fowler: As I have said, unemployment has come down for 16 months in a row. My hon. Friend is entirely right to state that it is now at its lowest level for five years. The Government want that trend to continue. That is not automatic, but provided that the lessons of the past are learned, I believe that unemployment should continue to come down.

Mr. Meacher: While we certainly welcome any further fall in the unemployment figures, may I ask whether the Secretary of State is aware that, even on the Government's figures after they have fiddled them in 19 different ways, unemployment has still fallen by only one quarter of the amount by which it has increased under the Government since 1979? Is he further aware that under this Government Britain still has the worst combination of high unemployment and high inflation of any major Western country? Is he also aware that the number of people in jobs as a proportion of the total population available for work has not improved one jot, according to the Government's figures, since the end of 1982?

Mr. Fowler: I am not prepared to take lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the inflation rate. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Labour Government when inflation exceeded 20 per cent. The fact is that unemployment has come down for 16 months in succession. There is no question about the downward trend in unemployment. The hon. Gentleman would do much better to welcome that trend and recognise that in countries such as France, Belgium, Spain and Ireland unemployment is higher, not lower, than in this country.

Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is significant that during the general election campaign in June the Conservative party was the only party which did not make rash promises about reducing unemployment to 2 million in one year? Does that not prove that actions speak louder than words?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Since the election the unemployment rate has come down by several hundred thousand. We very much hope that the trend will continue.

Fresh Claims Experiment

Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the fresh claims experiment.

Mr. Fowler: The experiments, which involve using more senior staff to interview newly unemployed people, have

just ended. Their aim was to see whether it is possible to provide a greater range of help and advice on both benefit procedures and employment opportunities at the initial point of contact with an unemployed person. The experiments are now being evaluated.

Mr. McLeish: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Is it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that the principal reason for the reduction in the number of people registered as unemployed is the increasing abuse of measures such as restart, the fresh claims experiment and the availability-for-work criteria? Indeed, 2·5 million restart interviews have taken place and some cynics would suggest that we should not be suprised about the dramatic fall in the number of unemployed that the Government talk about. Does he also accept that that view is increasingly shared by the British people? When will he elevate the tackling of unemployment above the abuse of the unemployed?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Not only have the unemployment figures gone down, but the number of people in employment has risen substantially. He mentioned the availability-for-work test. I must point out to him that those powers come from the Social Security Act 1975, which was passed by the Labour Government. As far as I know, no one seriously wants to pay out benefit when people are not available for work.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to extend the experiment nationwide?

Mr. Fowler: We shall have to evaluate information that we have only just collected. We shall then consider what the possible extension of the programme may involve.

Mr. Skinner: If the Secretary of State is thinking of extending the new scheme as another turn of the screw against the unemployed, perhaps he or one of his colleagues will examine the fresh claims made in the House of Lords by all those peers who turn up for work, nod to the duty officer and then walk out without even voting, complete with their £100 a day tax-free.

Mr. Fowler: That has nothing to do with me, or with the question.

Liquid Petroleum Gas

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the findings of the Health and Safety Executive investigation of the explosion in Balham on 21 August 1987; and when he expects the advisory committee on dangerous substances to announce the results of its consideration of the standards relating to the keeping and use of liquid petroleum gas.

Mr. Nicholls: The Health and Safety Executive investigation into the explosion at Balham on 21 August 1987 concluded that the most likely cause was a leak of butane from a gas bottle and gas ring in the basement of the building.
The advisory committee on dangerous substances has considered proposals for future controls over flammable gases and liquids, including standards relating to the keeping and use of liquefied petroleum gas. Its recommendations have been submitted to the Health and Safety Commission for consideration at a meeting to be held shortly.

Mr. Bowis: In the light of the coroner's statement that the canister was not adequately labelled on the occasion of the explosion, will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the fact that such labelling is required for industrial use of canisters, but not for domestic or retail use? Will he make recommendations accordingly?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that the coroner made remarks to that effect and pointed out the distinction between domestic use and storage of gas and its use in the workplace. I am sure that Calor Gas has taken careful note of what the coroner said.

Fire Fighting

Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to seek to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as it relates to the training of employees in fire fighting procedures at the place of work; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholls: No, Sir. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act already confers general duties on employers to provide such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of employees. More specific requirements for general fire precautions, including training in the event of fire, are contained in the Fire Precautions Act 1971.

Mr. Madel: As there is a duty on employers to make every effort to improve safety and training in safety at the place of work, should not employers regularly communicate at least once a year with all their employees to explain what is being done to update and improve firefighting procedures?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, employers have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their employees. That applies to fire or to any other risk. However, the working of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which is the primary legislation available for the purpose, is more properly the province of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Miniser aware that many British employers are daily and yearly infringing the requirement of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act for their companies' safety policies to be updated annually? If he is aware of that deliberate flouting of the law, what is he doing about it?

Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Lady has any specific instances of breaches of the law, I hope that she will do what is necessary to draw it to the attention of the authorities responsible.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the balance in the commendable desire to ensure that employees and other people are equipped to fight fires is not sometimes tipped too far and that some of the buildings in which people have to fight fires have become difficult for people to live and work in because of the requirements of some safety precautions?

Mr. Nicholls: I take my hon. Friend's point, but at the same time it must be reiterated that there is a responsibility on employers to ensure the safety of their employees, and that must be a primary consideration.

Young Training Schemes

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds are currently on youth training schemes.

Mr. Cope: On 31 October there were 391,719 YTS trainees with a two-year training entitlement and 25,084 with a one-year entitlement. Those with a two-year entitlement usually start training at 16 and those with a one-year entitlement usually start at 17.

Mr. Nellist: I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he seen the October edition of his Department's Employment Gazette, which shows that YTS trainees in the retailing sector produce for their employers an average of £39 per week added value? The average for the eight industries that take 59 per cent. of YTS trainees placed with employers is £32 a week. If that amount is added to the current YTS allowance, £70 a week is coming into employers' hands. Why cannot trainees have a decent training allowance of at least £55 a week?

Mr. Cope: The training allowance is adequate, and a recent survey which showed that 80 per cent. of trainees thought that their training was worth while proves that fact.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, nationally, more than 70 per cent. of young people on YTS go on to further education training or a job, and that in some areas, including Norwich, the figure may be higher? Is this not a major success, compared with the feeble efforts of the Labour party when it was in government some years ago?

Mr. Cope: The figures are very encouraging, and they show the success of the scheme.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister admit that these figures show a disappointing level of employed youngsters on youth training? The original intention of the scheme was for it to be a good training base for young people in and out of work. Is it not about time that the Government said that no youngster should be going into work without training, and is it not about time also that we caught up with our industrial competitors and trained young people who are in and out of work?

Mr. Cope: With over 400,000 people being trained on it, YTS is a very successful scheme. The option remains for youngsters to go directly into work, if they so wish, without going on YTS, and that should remain so.

Self-employment

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of self-employment.

Mr. Cope: Self-employment has a very important role to play in the regeneration of the economy and the reduction of unemployment. The current level of self-employment is 2·7 million, representing one in nine of the work force, and it is continuing to increase.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. It shows that, if those figures were taken together with the employed population, unemployment would be well below 10 per cent. Has my hon. Friend


any plans to ensure that self-employed people are helped by Government to sell their services and products to Government?

Mr. Cope: We help small firms as much as we can to tender for Government contracts. A booklet, "Tendering for Government Contracts", is available from the Department's small firms service. With our encouragement, a number of Departments are publishing similar guidance for small firms on the opportunities to do business with Government.

Miss Mowlam: Very few young people are self-employed. After April, self-employment for young people may take on a new definition, because they will either have to be on benefit or on YTS. Will the Minister guarantee that he will provide a YTS place for every 16 and 17-yearold, as the Secretary of State for Social Services is unprepared to give that guarantee?

Mr. Cope: We do guarantee a place on YTS to those eligible.

Tourism

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution the tourist industry is making to reducing unemployment in the inner cities.

Mr. Lee: The tourism industry is making a significant contribution to employment in inner-city areas. More jobs are expected to be created when the tourism potential of inner cities and urban areas is further realised as a result of Government policies, the English Tourist Board's initiatives and investment by the public and private sectors.

Mr. Bowden: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only the English Tourist Board, but local authorities and other agencies have a significant part to play in increasing tourism and encouraging employment? Is he aware of the imaginative initiatives that have been taken by Southwark chamber of commerce to encourage tourism south of the river in the inner London borough of Southwark? Will he confirm that 22 per cent. of the urban development grant is spent on tourist initiatives?

Mr. Lee: Yes, I can confirm that. In fact, about 23 per cent. of total English urban development grants are used on tourism projects. As my hon. Friend has suggested, tourism is very much a partnership industry between Government and the public and private sectors, with local authorities also having a role to play. As far as Southwark is concerned, I am delighted by the progress that is being

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): . This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend reflect today on areas in the north, which suffer from high unemployment

and which will give a hearty welcome to the thousands of new jobs that will result from the confidence of Japanese manufacturers in our economy?

The Prime Minister: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the excellent news that Nissan is expanding its investments in the north-east by about £200 million because it is delighted with the work that is done there. That will create another 1,400 jobs. Another Japanese company is expanding in East Kilbride, which again will provide a considerable number of jobs. That displays excellent confidence in the economy and work force of this country.

Mr. Kinnock: In an unprecedented action, the Prime Minister has been petitioned today by over 1,000 doctors and consultants, who are alarmed at what they call
serious reductions in the Health Service … which are endangering patients' lives".
What is the Prime Minister's response to them" Will she say that they are wrong and that the cuts are not really happening, or will she accept that they are right. but tell them that it is really all their fault?

The Prime Minister: I shall set out the Government's excellent record in providing more resources— about 30 per cent. more in real terms over the past eight years—and in increasing—[Interruption.] As they asked me to make certain that expenditure kept pace with the increasing GNP, I shall point out that when we came in, expenditure on health was 4·8 per cent. of GNP and that it is now 5·5 per cent. after eight years of Tory Government. So we have done better than they requested. I shall also point out that the allocations of the £1·1 billion for England next year will soon be announced.

Mr. Kinnock: With her recitations of figures, the Prime Minister is now making a fool of herself. She is showing a complete determination not to respond to what the highest authorities and most expert opinions have called the "crisis" in the Health Service. Will she not heed the words of Sir George Godber, who said:
it is useless for Ministers to repeat barely relevant multiples of past expenditure, staff employed, or numbers going in and out of hospital doors … What matters is the volume of services not provided or too long delayed".
Will the Prime Minister now make sure that the resources are made available to bring those beds back into use, to fund the pay awards and restructuring and to ensure that she stops the rot in the National Health Service?

The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. Gentleman, the allocations for increases next year -which to the hospital and community services in England alone amount to some £700 million, paid for by the taxpayer—will shortly be made and the regional health authorities will soon have details of them. In the meantime, because it is the treatment of the patient that counts, let me make it quite clear that for every three hip replacement operations in 1978 there are now four, for every two cataract operations which took place under Labour there are now three, and altogether, for every six operations then, there are now seven. That is an expanding Health Service and it will continue to expand.

Mr. Kinnock: The House and the country needs to know that, much though the Prime Minister makes of that £700 million, £500 million is already allocated for pay and prices, a further £100 million is already allocated for emergency initiatives, a further £48 million will be


necessary only because the Government are putting up electicity prices, and the area health authorities have to find £170 million out of that sum to pay off the debts that they have had to run up because of underfunding this year. Why does not the Prime Minister, instead of constantly hiding behind those figures, understand that, as Sir George Godber says, the principles of equity and of access to care on the basis of need, not the ability to pay, are now seriously under threat, and make not just commendation of the Health Service, but resources available for the Health Service?

The Prime Minister: I give the right hon. Gentleman the figures because they show that no Government in history have given the Health Service more resources, more doctors, more nurses, or better pay for the nurses, than this one. That is what the right hon. Gentleman does not like.
As the right hon. Gentleman quotes from a previous chief medical officer to the Health Service, let me quote from the Labour party's document "The Way Forward", with a foreword by the noble Lord Ennals, then Secretary of State for Social Services. He gave a very different tale from the right hon. Gentleman when he said:
Public expectations of the health and social services will frequently outrun supply and sometimes hard decisions will be needed to hold back some services to allow others to be developed.
That is what the Labour Government said when they were in power because they could not provide a fraction of the services that we have provided.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Very occasionally. Mr. Kinnock.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.

Mr. Kinnock: Free speech, Mr. Speaker. Free speech. —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Very occasionally a dispensation is given to the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Kinnock: Tory Members are only proving their sensitivity, Mr. Speaker.
Following what the right hon. Lady said, the infinity of demand for health care is understood to be a reality—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to contain itself. Mr. Kinnock

Mr. Kinnock: Following what the Prime Minister said, the infinity of demand for health care—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good hon. Members pointing at each other across the Chamber in such a disgraceful way. Mr. Kinnock.

Mr. Kinnock: That reaction really does show that the blood is flowing through the bandages that the Tories are trying to wrap around it. The infinity of demand of which the right hon. Lady speaks is well understood. For most Governments, it is accepted as a challenge. With her Government, it is used as an alibi. Will she heed the words of her erstwhile supporter, Mr. Nigel Harris, who said that her policies are ludicrous, deceitful and lead to the degradation of the patients? How can she take pride in that? Why does she not make the proper resources available to stop the crisis?

The Prime Minister: The doctors' petition this morning asked for the proportion of GDP to be maintained. I therefore repeat that this Government have done better than that. The last—[Interruption.] This Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This kind of noise does the reputation of the House no good at all.

The Prime Minister: This Government have increased the proportion of GDP to 5·5 per cent. The last Labour Government cut it from 5·1 to 4·8 per cent.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Christmas in England will be the most prosperous Christmas that the country has ever known? Is she further aware that this happy time could be spoilt by certain yobbos, whether on the cricket field, in the boxing ring or in football crowds, whose behaviour falls short of what we expect? Do we not want, with better, prosperous times, more decent behaviour by the mass of the people?

The Prime Minister: These are—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: These are the times of the highest standard of living that this country has ever known. So far as I am concerned, if more of us emulated my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), the House would be very much more orderly than it is.

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave quite some time ago.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that yesterday in the House I and several colleagues met representatives of the ambulance service in Gwent, who complained bitterly about cuts and reorganisation which have now reached the stage when life is being endangered? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what response I should make to this dedicated group of people who have served the community so well over many years?

The Prime Minister: Let me make two points. First, expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales has risen in real terms by a third. People may want more, but they should be very grateful that, under this Tory Government, expenditure goes up to levels which it could not possibly have reached under Labour. Secondly, in respect of the increased allocations for next year, paid for by the taxpayer, an average family this year pays £1,500 to the Health Service. Next year, to pay for the increased expenditure on the Health Service, the average expenditure per family will go up to £1,600 a year. The allocations resulting from that expenditure in Wales and elsewhere will shortly be announced.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the implications for the Government service of the harassment and intimidation currently going on in the CPSA and say whether that union should continue to have time and Government money to carry on its activities?

The Prime Minister: We condemn harassment and intimidation wherever they arise. Of course, the Employment Bill is concerned with the rights of trade union members, not with harassment and intimidation. The alleged harassment and intimidation is a matter for the police. It is now being investigated, so my hon. Friend will not expect me to say anything further at this moment.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholson: Since we are now approaching the coldest period of the year, and since many of my hon. Friends and I have been the object of a co-ordinated campaign by the opponents of the expansion of nuclear power, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to study and emphasise the strength of the British

electricity generating industry, based on a variety of sources of supply? Will she contrast its happy position with the position in Romania, where the domestic ration is enough only to run one small electric heater for one hour each day?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a responsibility or the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I agree that the generation of electricity needs to come from a number of different sources, including nuclear. Nuclear supplies are now approaching some 20 per cent. of our generating capacity. As my hon. Friend knows, we need a considerable programme of investment in power stations, transmission and distribution. This Government are about to embark on such a programme.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Time is up. [Interruption.]

Points of Order

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) brought to your attention the fact that there is no Scottish Minister serving on the Standing Committee considering the Health and Medicines Bill. That Committee met this morning. Of course, you ruled on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and it is now concluded. I drew the attention of the Chairman of the Committee to the fact that, Standing Order No. 87(1) states:
Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, or any of them, being Members of the House, though not members of a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
That matter was raised, and the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), ruled that it was not a matter for him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss on the Floor of the House what goes on in a Committee.

Mr. Hogg: The point is that the problem of there not being a Scottish Minister on the Committee could have been overcome if we could have sent for the Solicitor-General for Scotland because the Bill deals with primary legislation covering the Health Service in Scotland. That is not possible because the Solicitor-General for Scotland lost his seat in the general election, but the Government saw fit to reappoint him. So here we have a Standing Order that says that we may send for a Law Officer, but we have lost that right because the Law Officer is not a Member of this House. How can we get around that problem?

Mr. Speaker: I have to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that he is correct in saying that there is no Scottish Law Officer qualified to attend the Standing Committee. Membership of the Committee is a matter for the Committee of Selection. As I explained to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) yesterday, that is the place where he should take his representations. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to press the point any further, but we in Scotland have now reached the point at which we have no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because the Government cannot provide membership and cannot agree on it. We have failed to have a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, we do not have a Scottish Minister on the Standing Committee, and we cannot send for the Solicitor-General for Scotland. It must be apparent to hon. Members and to people outside that the Government are incapable of properly administering the affairs of Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of the House, will you confirm that this is a unitary Parliament in which every part of the United Kingdom is dealt with properly and that Scottish affairs are regularly dealt with in the Chamber? In fact, within the recent week we have dealt with Scottish business.

Mr. Speaker: That is true, but it does not necessarily follow from the point of order.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Health and Medicines Bill. This morning, I was silenced. I was unable to debate the very important—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that we cannot debate in the House what goes on in Standing Committee. It is not my responsibility. It is a matter for the Standing Committee itself and for its Chairman.

Mr. Hayes: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. This relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). The reason I could not speak in Committee this morning was the filibuster organised by the Labour party.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have rightly on a number of occasions pointed out that you see one of your major roles as protecting the rights of Back-Bench Members. At Question Time you mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition that it was an exception for a fourth question to be asked by him. May I ask you to re-emphasise that it is an exception because it is a dangerous precedent? May I also point out that nine of the 15 minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time today were devoted exclusively to questions by the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help on this. I said to the House—and the hon. Member heard me, otherwise he would not have raised the point of order—that very exceptionally I call the Leader of the Opposition for a fourth time. I emphasise to the House that in the course of a Parliament I shall seek to ensure that every Back-Bench Member who wishes to be called is called at Prime Minister's Question Time. To that extent I have to exercise a degree of rationing. I seek to ensure that the calling is as fair and as wide as possible.

Mr. Ernie Ross: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will also be aware that today we were unable to hear at least two minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time because of the actions of a number of hon. Members. I know it is very difficult for you. It would be easy for us to identify individual hon. Members, but is there any way by which you can name collectively a group of hon. Members who seek to disrupt the House by actions such as we had today?

Mr. Speaker: I welcome the opportunity of saying to the House that our reputation is in the hands of hon. Members. A row such as we had at Question Time, which, sadly, was broadcast, does the House a very grave disservice.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that, even in the short time that I have been here, the amount of time taken by the Leader of the Opposition increases—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That touches upon my prerogative. Let us leave it.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order before last, Mr. Speaker. When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry asked the then Attorney-General, Mr. Sam Silkin, to advise it, he replied


in writing that, although Law Officers had a duty to advise the House as a whole, they had no duty to advise Committees of the House. That was the accepted doctrine. It might be well worth reminding the House of it so that there are no further points of order on Law Officers who do not go to Committees.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for his memory of these matters.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member who was next on the list at Prime Minister's Question Time and who was unable to ask the Prime Minister about the very important statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just the point. I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman. I carefully keep a list, so I am aware that the hon. Member has not asked a question of the Prime Minister in this Session. I shall seek to make it up to him later.

Child Benefit (Uprating)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in 1988 or any subsequent calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order to produce an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage, and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund.
Once again, I am seeking the leave of the House to introduce a Bill in respect of the uprating of child benefit. May I remind hon. Members of the long title of the Bill that I am proposing, which is as follows:
to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in 1988 or any subsequent calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order to produce an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage, and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that this is an important ten-minute Bill on child benefit, I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would ask those Members leaving the Chamber to do so quietly so that the rest of us can hear the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams).

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for his help. Will hon. Members please leave quietly?

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I believe that it is worth the time of the House to consider for a few moments the origin of child benefit and the reason why it is somewhat controversial at this time. As hon. Members will remember, the system of family allowances was introduced, with all-party support, in 1945 by the caretaker Government. That system continued until the mid-1970s as a universal benefit targeted to families with children according to the number of children in the family. However, child benefit has a much older origin than that, because it originated with the child tax allowances that featured at the very start of the income tax system when it was introduced by William Pitt at the end of the 18th century. It was decided in the mid-1970s that the two kinds of child allowance should be amalgamated. I calculate that, if child tax allowance had continued and had been uprated in the same way as the other tax allowances since that time in accordance with the Lawson-Rooker-Wise formula, it would now be worth to taxpayers in net terms, about £450 for each child.
Child benefit has not been uprated in the same way as other tax allowances and, therefore, this year it is worth only some £370 per child. Bearing in mind that that sum As paid direct to the mother and is not liable to tax, it is an important benefit for the nearly 7 million families who claim it. It is targeted to all families without test of means.
I should like to raise one or two points about the benefit because the majority of the people who claim it are people who are also liable for income tax. For them, the child benefit has the effect of a remission of their tax burden. The amount of tax and the amount of benefit breaks even


for couples with one child only at about £100 per week, and even for couples with four children the break-even point is below the national average of male manual earnings. Between 4 million and 5 million families pay more in income tax than they derive in child benefit. Therefore, for that large number of families, child benefit constitutes a welcome remission of their tax burden. In fact, it constitutes a tax cut targeted towards families according to the number of their children.
Many people favour a reduction in the general rate of income tax, and they believe that, in some ways, that is preferable to an uplift in the rate of child benefit. I do not share that view. In fact, single people stand to do best if there is an across-the-board, untargeted reduction in income tax. However, if we were to relieve the tax burden of families specifically by raising the child benefit, the money would go to the people who obviously have the greatest need at each particular level of income.
It is worth going back to the arguments that many of us remember about the amalgamation of child benefit and family allowances in the mid-1970s. I believe that there were three particular reasons why the House decided that child benefit should be introduced to supersede family allowances and child tax allowances: first, for the ease of administration; secondly, on account of the question of incentives, which was extremely important then and, indeed, is certainly extremely important now, given the growing awareness of the importance of the poverty trap for so many people in this country; thirdly, because of the question of take-up. We had virtually 100 per cent. take-up of the family allowances before the amalgamation, and, since the amalgamation, in the form of the child benefit, once again we have virtually 100 per cent. take-up of this popular benefit, which still goes directly to the mothers.
These are particularly important questions today. Every one of us knows the pressure there is on the supplementary benefit offices to deal with their monumental load of case-work. We must remember that the child benefit not only has the highest take-up of all the family benefits; it involves virtually no case-work and is the cheapest of the family benefits to administer.
Then there is the question of incentives. I must bring to the attention of the House the tragic way in which the numbers are growing, inexorably, of people who are obliged to apply for means-tested benefit of one sort or another. I received a parliamentary answer a few days ago which shocked me and would shock anyone who studied it carefully. It appears that there are now between 15 million and 16 million people in this country who are dependent in one way or another on means-tested benefits. Worse than that, it is officially estimated that there may be about 5 million or 6 million further people who do not claim means-tested benefits, but would be eligible for benefit if they chose to do so. That is a large part of our population for whom, when they have calculated the effect of so doing, there is not a great deal of purpose in working or saving. Conservative Members and, I believe, Opposition Members, too, believe in the importance for self-respect of working and saving.
This country cannot continue to have an inexorably rising number of people who are obliged to apply for means-tested benefits. Although it may be administered in a kind manner—I know that the people in the DHSS and in the local authorities and elsewhere who have to deal

with case-work do their utmost to be humane and reasonable—that number of millions of people must class themselves, inevitably, as second-rate citizens. The great advantage of the child benefit is that it is a universal benefit, and people who improve their lot do not lose their eligibility for that important benefit.
This year, by not uprating the child benefit, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State unhappily has tipped about another 40,000 people on to the heap of those who are eligible to apply for means-tested benefit. We have before us now the prospect of the community charge. I believe that that may add as many as a further 2 million to the number of people who are eligible to apply for means-tested benefits.
The time has come for the House to make a clear recommendation to the Departments concerned about the future of child benefit. When I introduced a similar Bill about 18 months ago there was a Division, and the number of Members who voted in favour was 152; only three Members voted against. The Department should have noted the expression of opinion in the House at that time; but it did not. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chose not to increase child benefit this year, but I should like to make it clear to the House that my Bill as drafted is not a confrontation with my right hon. Friend. I understand his reasons; at the very time when the new family credit is being brought in, which everyone must welcome, he did not feel inclined also to uprate child benefit. I understand his reasons, though I regret his decision. My Bill however, is not a confrontation with that decision. The effect of my Bill, if passed by the House, would be only to put child benefit on the Lawson-RookerWise formula with effect from next year. That truly is something on which the House could unite in all parties.
I realise that there are certain people, inside and outside the House, who feel that they do not need child benefit, so why should it be given to them? To them, we should make the point that they are entitled to a reduction in taxation if tax cuts are in the air, and there is no reason why tax cuts should not be targeted specifically to families—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had 10 minutes. Will he now bring his remarks to a close?

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I will indeed do so.
There are some 10,000 claimants in each constituency, which is a point that hon. Members may care to bear in mind.
My last point is to explain why the national insurance fund features in my long title. We should revive the concept of national insurance, so that child benefit, just as much as pensions and unemployment relief, may be seen to emanate from the national insurance fund. I trust that the House will support my Bill.

Mr. Frank Field: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Field: I seek to oppose this important proposed Bill. It is important because it affects 7 million mothers and 14 million children and it would be wrong for it to be nodded through. The only way in which we have a chance to express our individual preferences is in the Division


Lobby, and when the time comes I shall seek to divide the House. Needless to say, I hope that the Bill is given leave to be brought in by a massive majority.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must oppose, not praise and then oppose.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 20.

Division No. 112]
[3.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Eastham, Ken


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Alton, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Anderson, Donald
Fearn, Ronald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flannery, Martin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Foster, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Battle, John
Fraser, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
French, Douglas


Beckett, Margaret
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Beggs, Roy
Galbraith, Samuel


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Benyon, W.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Boateng, Paul
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bowis, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boyes, Roland
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle B)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce


Buckley, George
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Haynes, Frank


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heffer, Eric S.


Carrington, Matthew
Henderson, Douglas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Geraint


Coleman, Donald
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Jack, Michael


Cummings, J.
John, Brynmor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, leuan (Ynys M6n)


Darling, Alastair
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Dewar, Donald
Knox, David


Dixon, Don
Lambie, David


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James


Doran, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Dunnachie, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Eadie, Alexander
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)





Lewis, Terry
Redmond, Martin


Litherland, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, John


Livsey, Richard
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rogers, Allan


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Tom
Rost, Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Rowe, Andrew


McFall, John
Rowlands, Ted


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McTaggart, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Squire, Robin


Meale, Alan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steinberg, Gerald


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Gavin


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Straw, Jack


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Morley, Elliott
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B heath)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Vaz, Keith


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Wall, Pat


Mudd, David
Wallace, James


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan


Murphy, Paul
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Nellist, Dave
Wareing, Robert N.


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


O'Neill, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Patchett, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter
Worthington, Anthony


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wray, James


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Yeo, Tim


Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Price, Sir David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Primarolo, Ms Dawn



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, Stuart
Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams


Rathbone, Tim
and Mr. Tony Marlow


NOES


Allason, Rupert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Amos, Alan
Mans, Keith


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Brazier, Julian
Redwood, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dover, Den
Wells, Bowen


Forth, Eric
Wheeler, John


Gow, Ian



Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mr. Frank Field and


Janman, Timothy
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, M r. Jim Lester, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Tim Yeo.

CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATING)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in 1988 or any subsequent calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order to produce an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage, and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 71].

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 December], That the clause (Dog Licences), proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.

(1) The duty charged under the Dog Licences Act 1959 on Licences for dogs shall from the date set out in subsection (5) and subject to subsection (2), be determined by a London borough, or district council, as appropriate at a level of not less that £10 per annum and not more than £20 per annum in any financial year and shall be allocated by the authority to the funding of a dog warden service in its area.
(2) No duty shall be charged in respect of any dog which is:—

(a) a trained guide dog kept for the purpose of assisting a blind or partially-sighted person;
(b) a dog kept for the purpose of work in connection with the maintenance of livestock or gamekeeping;
(c) a dog whose owner has attained the age of statutory retirement.

(3) In Section 1 of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to dogs) Act 1933 (disqualification for keeping a dog of any person convicted of cruelty to dogs), at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(5) For the purposes of this section a person shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to keep a dog—

(a) if it is found or seen in that person's custody, charge or possession, or in his house or premises;
(b) in the case of hounds, if he is their owner or master."

(4) In section 1 of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) (Scotland) Act 1934 (disqualification for keeping a dog of any person convicted of cruelty to dogs), at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(5) For the purposes of this section a person shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to keep a dog—

(a) if it is found or seen in that person's custody, charge or possession, or in his house or premises;
(b) in the case of hounds, if he is their owner or master."

(5) this section shall come into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.".—[Mr. Rooker.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support my hon. Friends in seeking to maintain the dog licensing system. I shall not dwell on the matter at length because several important points have been made, but it is worth pointing out that, unless we have some system of registration, we shall not be able to detect animal diseases with the accuracy and precision necessary to take remedial action.
With the development of the Channel tunnel and the completion of the internal market by 1992, there is a grave danger that rabies will be a greater possibility in Britain. In the Common Market, rabies is spreading at the rate of 25 miles each year, and the barrier against rabies that the Common Market has attempted to set up through an inoculation process has not stemmed the spread of the disease. Therefore, it is reasonable that we should have a licensing system, because, although one hopes that that possibility will never come to fruition, we should be forewarned.
The National Canine Defence League takes the view that we should retain the dog licensing system. The Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, which is chaired by Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Irving of Dartford and has as its vice-chairman the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who is taking her usual interest in the subject, points out:
However, the decision to abolish rather than to increase the licence to a sensible level of up to £10 goes against the advice of the veterinary bodies, the welfare bodies, the local authorities, the environmental health officers and the farmers. The present income goes to local authorities helping to fund, in a minimal way, present dog warden services.
If there were an adequate dog licence fee, those dog warden services could be made very much more effective in reducing the nuisance of dogs while helping to maintain standards which the vast majority of dog owners seek to maintain. It would provide for a much more effective service.
New clause 4 seeks to give powers to local authorities to draw up a register of dangerous dogs. It is a probing clause. If the Minister says that the definition of dangerous dogs should not be left to local authorities—I am happy to leave it to democratically elected local authorities to examine what prevails in their areas— and insists that there should be a central, universal definition, I would be happy for a clause to give the Minister power to define such categories by means of a statutory instrument.
It is a matter of concern. A newspaper comment on the increase in the category of dangerous dogs states:
Strict conditions should be imposed on the sale of giant Rottweiler dogs, says former police dog handler Stephen Allinson.
Mr. Allinson, who runs a Rottweiler dogs display team —the Black Devils—billed as 'The SAS of the Dog World', spoke out after last week's attack on a Bradford headteacher who as savaged by one of the dogs as he took a pupil home from school.
'The problem today is that the Rottweiler is a fashionable dog and is getting into the wrong hands' said Mr. Allinson.
It went on:
Mr. Allinson said the dogs are not necessarily dangerous or ferocious, but breeders were selling them to the wrong people.
'A condition of sale should be that the new owner attends dog training classes until the dog and owner can prove a competent team together.' … Bradford Council's environmental health chiefs have already urged owners of big dogs, especially guard dogs, to make sure that they get their animals properly trained.
That is the voice of experience. A man who trains that category of dog regularly and who was a former police dog handler says that there are dangers.
There have been a number of attacks, and I wish to dwell on one which occurred in my constituency and which was mentioned in my previous quotation from the local evening paper. It involved the head teacher of a local school who had a pupil who had suffered an asthma attack, so he kindly and humanely agreed to take the small boy home. When he got the boy home, a Rottweiler dog
broke free from its chain when they arrived, hurling itself at … and knocking him to the ground.
The owner sought to drag the dog off its victim as it sank its teeth into his arm and other parts of his body. Bradford Council's emergency dog warden team was called in to subdue the animal with special restraining equipment. The two wardens then held down the dog with lasso poles while a vet raced to the scene. When vet Neil Adams arrived, he injected the animal with a fatal shot and Mr. Waterhouse was rushed to hospital.

Mr. Waterhouse has been off work for three months, at considerable cost to the local authority and the education service.
The new clause would enable the mounting of some sort of scrutiny of dog ownership. It would enable a register of dangerous dogs to be drawn up and conditions of ownership, such as kennel provision, chaining and fencing, to be checked by the local authority, which would help the owner in that respect. Those who argue against it say that the cost would be too high, but the new clause may well save public expenditure if it can prevent accidents such as the dreadful vicious attack that I described.
We need to consider other consequences, too. There were two Rottweilers at the house where the attack took place. The one that was killed because of the attack was immediately replaced by a bull mastiff, so there are now at least three dangerous dogs at the house. They are not always chained up.
Another of my constituents has a four-month old baby daughter. Can those who criticise the supervision of dogs through licensing, and the closer supervision of some categories of dog, assure me that that four-month-old baby will be perfectly safe if she is left in the garden next to a house where there are two or three Rottweilers and a bull mastiff? Of course they cannot. The parents cannot leave their four-month-old daughter in their garden and enjoy any peace of mind or security. They have erected a fence at considerable expense, but they cannot be sure that one of the animals will not break away, leap over the fence and savage the baby. Given that an adult who was savagely attacked needed hospital treatment and has been off work for three months, one dreads to think of what the dog could do to a four-month old baby.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend recognise that one merit of the new clause is that it would allow the identification and location of the dangerous American pit bull terriers being imported into this country at great cost to facilitate illegal dog fighting?

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely the sort of dog that would fall into the category required to be registered under my new clause. That would meet the objections to the way in which some dogs are cruelly and viciously set against each other in illegal fights.
In addition to the four-month-old baby, a number of young children live around the house to which I have referred. When the dogs are loose, the children have to be kept in. They cannot play in the garden as their parents would like them to. This is not an isolated incident. Several of my constituents have written to me saying that they have experienced similar problems.
The House cannot just shrug off these cases and say, "Well, decent dog owners should and do look after their dogs," and tut-tut a little at those who are not so careful. In the case that I cited, there has been no prosecution. I have raised the matter with the Home Office, which says that the law is adequate and that dog owners vs ho do not control their animals properly can be prosecuted. However, in this case, the police have decided against prosecution, for reasons that are not spelt out in their letter to me.
The new clause is a very modest measure which seeks to minimise accidents. We all know that they happen from time to time, and when they do hands are raised in horror. We can seek to take remedial action and to provide a


legislative framework for local authorities to ensure that the number of accidents and of terrible competitions in which dogs are pitted against each other illegally is reduced.
The Minister may say that my new clause is too broadly drawn. I should be happy to accept a clause drawn up by his Department if it gave the same degree of security and supervision. Bradford has a very good dog warden service which has improved the process of rounding up stray dogs. However, that dog warden service is not adequate to protect people against some of these ferocious dogs because it does not have the information necessary to pinpoint the dangers. I hope that the House will support my new clause.

Miss Janet Fookes: I shall keep my remarks brief because I have to chair a Standing Committee at 4.30 pm. I hope that it will be understood that I shall not be in my place for the rest of the debate.
It will not surprise my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to learn that I deplore the Government's decision to abolish dog licences — a decision that goes against everything that I have worked for for 10 years or more. I want the dog licence fee raised to a realistic sum to support a dog warden scheme and a package of measures for the welfare and control of dogs.
I shall support the new clause if the Government cannot give me anything better, although it has certain drawbacks. I believe in the general thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and would not wish to be too critical of his proposal. I query whether it is wise to have variable licence fees as between one local authority and another because difficulties could arise if adjoining local authorities levied different sums. I query, too, whether it is wise to have quite such a blanket exemption for retirement pensioners. However, I fully agree that we should have a dog licence fee to enable us to go ahead with a package of reforms.
No taxation is popular and new taxes are even less popular, as the Government will shortly discover — if they have not done so already. Therefore, I query their wisdom in doing away with a tax that at least has the benefit of familiarity and which people have accepted because it has been in place far as long as anyone can remember. It is an astonishing act to get rid of a reasonable means of obtaining money to do a specific job, and I query it on that ground alone.
Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, the concept of a package of measures to control dogs commands a rare degree of agreement among a whole variety of groups, not least the animal welfare organisations. Those groups also include the National Farmers Union. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union do not always see eye to eye, but on this matter they march as one.
I query the Government's decision to do away with dog licences most of all because of the order that they themselves introduced in Northern Ireland in 1983. I gather that that measure is working well and has done much to reduce the nuisance on which other hon. Members have expatiated. Are the Government so displeased with the scheme that they propose to

discontinue it in Northern Ireland? If they do not propose to discontinue it, why is it not good enough for the mainland of Britain? I look forward with interest to the answers to those two questions, even if I am not in my seat to listen to them.
No one would suggest that it would be possible to achieve 100 per cent. enforcement of the increased dog licence. Frankly, it is worth no one's while to collect the miserable and paltry sum of 37p. I believe that if the dog licence fee was raised to a proper level of £5 or £10 that would be an inducement to enforce collection. I gather that there is a fair degree of enforcement in Northern Ireland and we therefore have a practical precedent to follow.
Although my next point goes beyond the scope of the new clause—and I will do no more than touch on it briefly — I believe that dog wardens should be given greater powers than they possess under existing legislation. They should be the enforcement agents for the collection of the licence fee and for the laws relating to dog fouling and other matters. That would go far to deal with the problems that many people who do not love dogs as I love them find so objectionable, for example the dog mess which they find in many places and the danger to children to which reference was made earlier.
The Government have missed a great opportunity. If they do not want to accept the new clause, I hope that they can offer something in its place. A general gesture of good will stating that local authorities will be able to introduce dog warden schemes without giving them the wherewithal to carry those schemes out will not be acceptable. We must remember that the authorities will have less money if the new clause is passed because the money that is collected is used by local authorities.
Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will reconsider. If they are not prepared to progress on the present basis, will they consider the ever-present threat of rabies entering this country? I am aware that a set of draconian reserve powers exists, which can be implemented if rabies enters the country. However, I do not believe that the Government will be thanked if those powers have to be invoked when it would have been possible to have a far more humane and attractive approach through a good system of licensing and registration and a dog warden scheme. If rabies should enter the country, I will not hesitate to remind my hon. Friends of what I have just said. We cannot shrug off the threat of rabies as something which is unlikely to happen. It is all too likely to happen. It would be far more prudent to have a proper system of dog control in force than the present system, which will result in utter chaos.
I am connected with two welfare societies, the RSPCA and the National Canine Defence League. The societies bear the brunt of dog owners' irresponsibility and the very inadequate controls on the breeding of dogs. They bear that brunt day after day, and it gives them no pleasure to have to destroy dogs when it is not possible to keep them for a variety of reasons. Money is being spent which would not have to be spent for that purpose if we had a proper set of controls. Unwanted dogs that are turned out by irresponsible owners lead a miserable existence. My hon. Friends should look at some of the homes — and Battersea dogs' home is close to the House—and they would see what welfare societies have to deal with every


day. Once Ministers had witnessed that they might give more thought to the problem before deciding to do away with the dog licence.
In short, I support the new clause, with reservations, for the reasons that I have given. I am anxious to see that the pass is not sold entirely and that we retain the dog licence as a necessary means of funding a scheme of dog wardens and other control measures. I would like to see a new Act which would bring all the dog laws together. However, I am aware that that goes beyond the scope of the new clause and I will say no more.

Mr. Hardy: I need not detain the House for long, because I share the concerns expressed by many hon. Members so far and not least those expressed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes).
I believe that the Government have acted with gross irresponsibility. Since the debate started, much has been said about the nature of the problems that are presented by irresponsible dog owners. I do not dissent from the need for the maintenance of the licence. However, the Government's record must be exposed. They have known since 1979 when they assumed office of the need for an improved, fair and effective system of control. The evidence has been available since the mid-1970s. I recall advancing an argument that certain reforms were required in 1975, when I suggested that the first priority was to remove the six-month exemption for the purchase of a licence whereby people getting a puppy do not need to buy a licence until the puppy is six months old. That exemption must he the single greatest cause of the difficulties from dogs that confront society.
While I am delighted that the Opposition have tabled amendment No. 29 which, if it was accepted by the House, would force the Government to reconsider the whole position and perhaps come forward with a sensible arrangement such as that advocated by the hon. Member for Drake I would have been delighted if the Opposition's position rested with that amendment. However, I have reservations about new clause 4. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will consider my points when he advises Opposition Members in another place.
To many hon. Members and perhaps to the vast majority of dog owners, £10 may not be a large sum of money. Indeed, £20—the maximum set down in the new clause — may not be a large sum. However, to many people who will not enjoy the "most prosperous Christmas" that this country has ever seen, to quote the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) — that means the 8 million on or below the poverty — £10 or £20 is a great deal of money. They would be bitterly resentful if they had to scrimp and save to find the £10 or £20 when they were responsible dog owners.
I hope that I can be regarded as a responsible dog owner. A number of hon. Members have mentioned their dogs. At home at the moment we have a large Irish wolfhound and a young deerhound. Our licences have always been paid on the dot, not because of my efficiency but because my wife insists on it. I strongly suspect that in my area and in all other areas, only a minority of dog owners obtain licences for their dogs. I suspect that, even if the new clause were passed, many people would not pay the

£10 or £20. The responsible dog owners whose dogs do not do the kind of thing that we have heard about would be even more angry and bitter.
Perhaps the Government have rather more cunning than some of us would give them credit for. They have failed to act for nearly 10 years despite the weight of evidence and the arguments advanced by Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Drake. The reason why they have not acted is that they did not wish to incur unpopularity. However, it is no part of the Opposition's job to incur unpopularity. Had the Government any serious and intelligent intentions in this matter, they would have accepted one of about five or six private Members' Bills presented to the House over the past six or seven years.
4.30 pm
As far as I can recall, in every instance the Government used, or wished to use, those private Members' Bills to get out from under and transfer the responsibility entirely to local authorities. I do not think that that is on from a Government who have inflicted rate capping on local authorities. I take the view that, if there is to be a fee, it should be determined centrally, and not left as a means of ensuring that more odium falls on the shoulders of local government. We wish to avoid the ridiculous state of affairs in which people living on one side of the road pay £10, while those on the other side pay £20.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is dealt with in new clause 15—tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—which provides for a licence fee of £10 per annum? That is the crucial difference between new clause 4 and new clause 15, although the principle is the same in both.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that I have sat through the whole debate. While that may be the intention of new clause 15, it is not the only intention that the Liberal party has demonstrated. The Liberal party's position seems to be very draconian. I believe that it would discourage not only irresponsible but responsible dog owners.
That, however, is not my only reservation about new clause 4. I note that, under subsection (2)(b),
a dog kept for the purpose of work in connection with the maintenance of livestock or gamekeeping
would be exempted from the licence charge. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has sought legal advice. I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me that some masters of hounds would be given an opportunity to argue that their packs should be exempt. That is surely not a proposal that the Opposition should contemplate.
Gamekeeping is a reputable activity. But if the gamekeeper is to enjoy such an exemption, what will be the position of the welfare organisations referred to by the hon. Member for Drake? Many breed clubs within the dog fancy also operate their own rescue societies. Will they have to find £10 or £20 for every dog that they Lake into care, which otherwise would probably be roaming the country or causing a general nuisance?
The same applies to boarding kennels. It is to be hoped that dog owners who go away on holiday ensure that their dogs are properly cared for while they are away; I do not consider it reasonable to require dog licences costing a


maximum of £20 from all boarding kennel owners. That would inevitably put up the cost, and discourage people from ensuring that their pets were properly looked after. If the gamekeeper — who is serving an important, or established, leisure interest—is to receive a concession, why should not such a concession also be offered to responsible people who are engaged in breeding and showing dogs? Thousands of people in Britain shoot, but I suspect that far more show dogs.
That leads me to a further suggestion. People who show dogs usually value them enormously, and the dogs may indeed be very valuable. Such people will not let their dogs wander about school fields — at least, they certainly should not do so. They recognise that the dogs may be a substantial asset. If those dogs are not likely to cause a nuisance to society, I suggest that their owners should pay no more than one licence fee. Those who own several dogs may be more responsible owners than those who own only one, but do not know how to look after it. I certainly do not wish a system to be introduced that would deter people from enjoying a perfectly sensible pastime in which I occasionally indulge — sometimes with substantial success—with my son's wolfhound.
We should be encouraging people to enjoy life, and to take part in the various activities that owning a dog can provide. We ought not to insist on a penalty that may make it impossible for poorer people to own dogs. I therefore hope that, by the time that the Bill reaches another place, the Opposition's proposal will be slightly more acceptable to responsible dog owners than it now appears to be.
Many hon. Members — perhaps the majority — consider that the entire cost of a dog warden scheme should fall on the shoulders of those who pay the proposed licence fee. That is entirely unreasonable. Why should responsible dog owners have to bear the whole cost of the irresponsibility of those who refuse to pay? If the Minister, or any of my hon. Friends, maintains that view, we may eventually reach a time when only smokers will be called upon to bear the cost of the fire brigade.
I agree with the view, expressed by a number of hon. Members, that the Government have acted irresponsibly, and should reconsider. In doing so, they may wish to consider a version of new clause 4 amended in the way that I have suggested.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) in urging my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government to consider the new clause sympathetically. Its wording is by no means perfect, but I believe that its principle is right, and that the Government should take it to themselves and bring forward in another place a form of wording that does not suffer from the same defects.
I urge the Minister to do that, because the new clause has an honourable history. I had the privilege of proposing a similar new clause to the Control of Pollution Bill 1974 from the Opposition Front Bench. The principle was the same—that we should give local authorities the power to introduce a dog warden scheme, which they could fund by charging a licence fee. They could then carry out the important measures necessary to ensure that dogs are well looked after, and that the physical environment is well

looked after at the same time, so that dangers from rabies, and to children in parks and playgrounds, can be properly dealt with and the risks diminished.
Unfortunately, I was not able to test the then Government's view, because the new clause was outside the long title of the Bill. Nevertheless, it enabled me to have discussions and negotiations which ended in the setting up of a working group which reported in 1976, accepting the principles and urging the Government to introduce legislation of the kind that we are now discussing.
From 1976 until 1979, the Government of the day found excuse after excuse not to legislate. I rather suspect that similar reasons will be given from the Government Front Bench today for not introducing the legislation that the Opposition are now demanding. It is remarkable how being in government and being in opposition tend to change hon. Members' views on certain matters, and this is certainly an example.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government at that time had such a tiny majority—if, indeed, they had a majority at all — that they would have been unable to do anything but what they did. The Opposition would certainly have used any Bill so presented for political purposes far beyond the interests of dogs. In any case, the hon. Gentleman is talking about a period of little more than two years. The present Government have been in power for eight years.

Sir Hugh Rossi: The hon. Gentleman's recollection is at fault. It was then Opposition policy to promote such legislation and, from the Front Bench, I was promoting it on behalf of the Opposition. The Government of the day would have had a good answer, because they could have said, "We now call on the Opposition to support what their Front Bench spokesman has been urging on us."
After 1979 I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in Northern Ireland, and it was no accident that an experiment was tried there with the introduction of an enlarged fee for a warden-controlled system. The problem was that people tended, as they do on this side of the water, to buy puppies for children at Christmas time, but after the Christmas holidays the puppies became a nuisance and were thrown out. They tended to roam in packs and the problem was that those wild packs savaged sheep throughout the countryside. It was necessary to find ways of controlling them.
It may be said that the experience of Northern Ireland has not been all that great; collection of the new enhanced fee is difficult and—I am unaware of the figures for today—possibly about 50 per cent. of dog owners do not pay the licence fee. If my hon. and learned Friend intends to argue that, I shall tell him that the collection by authorities of fees, taxes, rates and rents is generally difficult in certain parts of Northern Ireland. He should recognise the circumstances that appertain there for the collection of moneys by the authorities.
The introduction of the enlarged fee was successful because it gave the means to deal with the problem that I outlined. There has been a substantial reduction in wild dog packs, which were causing much danger to animals and, on occasions, to human beings.
As I understand the new clause, it is proposed to give local authorities the power to set up dog warden schemes.


Local authorities already have that power and can do that without the need for further legislation, but they do not have a particular means of raising money for a new service.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who said that people who keep dogs should not make a contribution to the creation of a dog warden scheme. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Drake said, this is not a matter for a national organisation, national apparatus or national levy.
The problem varies from area to area. Some local authorities will find it necessary to use the power and to raise money for a dog warden service. Others may not have that problem or may not wish to have a dog warden service. Some may need only a slender service and therefore would not need to raise whatever the House determines as the correct maximum, whether it be £10 or £20. It would be within the discretion of the local authority to decide, within the parameters of its needs arid with regard to the number of dog owners that lived in its locality, the amount that it needed to charge to run this service efficiently and effectively. We should enable local authorities to do that.
I represent an urban constituency, where dogs can be an enormous problem. There are many guard dogs in my constituency because of the levels of crime in certain areas. Dogs must be walked in the parks and streets, which creates an unseemly and dangerous environment, particularly for children.
There must be the means to encourage the local authority to set up an organisation that will ensure that that nuisance is kept to a minimum. To enable local authorities to employ people to do that, one should not expect them to pay for it out of the community charge —which they will be enabled under other legislation to levy—because £178 per annum per head of population may not be sufficient if we are to add the provision of a dog warden service to the responsibilities of local authorities.
4.45 pm
I ask my hon. and learned Friend to treat this matter with some seriousness. It is a matter which the Environment Select Committee has considered since 1983 —since when I have been privileged to be its chairman. We have looked at the Estimates of the Department of the Environment and, year after year, pointed to the absurdity of the cost of £3 million per year for collection of the national dog licence fee. I can well understand that the persistence of the Select Committee in pinpointing and underlining this absurdity each year, has driven the Government into considering the abolition of the dog licence.
That is one part only of the equation; the other is how one deals with the other problems that must be tackled, and for which local authorities must be given the wherewithal.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am a member of the Environment Select Committee. Would it not be true to say that it deliberately tabled a motion, when the report on the Estimates was last considered, with a blatant view to making the Government think about this problem and come forward with a solution not only to the matter of licensing but the wider implications of the control of dogs?

Sir Hugh Rossi: Given my involvement with the subject since 1974, that thought was not far from my mind when

the Committee agreed to table that motion. It is a matter of disappointment that the Government did not have the courage to deal with those matters.
The response of the Government will be similar to that which I received from the Government during the 1974–79 Parliament. No doubt they have received advice from the same officials, and the same considerations will apply, but if that is the case I must tell my hon. and learned Friend not to expect me in the same Lobby as him tonight.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to speak specifically to new clause 15—Dog Licences—

`(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the duty charged under the Dog Licences Act 1959 on licences for dogs shall be set at £10 per annum and shall be increased on 1 April of each year in line with the percentage increase in the retail prices index.
(2) The duty provided for in subsection (1) above shall be collected by a local authority from owners of dogs living in its area and shall be used by the authority for the funding of a dog warden service and for other dog control purposes in its area.
(3) No duty shall be charged under subsection (1) above in respect of:-

(a) a dog kept and used wholly or mainly for guidance by a blind or partially-sighted person, if the owner of the dog obtains a certificate of exemption in respect of the dog under this section;
(b) a dog whose owner has attained the statutory age of retirement;
(c) a dog kept and used solely for the purpose of tending sheep or cattle on a farm;
(d) a dog under the age of three months where that dog is kept by the person who at the time of its birth was the owner of the bitch which gave it birth;
(e) a dog kept by such other person or for such other purposes as may be specified, in England or Wales by the Secretary of State for the Environment, or, in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland, by a statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) Where no duty is charged under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3) above, the owner of the dog shall obtain from the local authority a certificate of exemption from duty in respect of the dog.
(5) In subsection (2) above, "local authority" means a district council, a London borough council, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, or the Common Council of the City of London.
(6) This section shall come into force at the end of a period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.',

and in support of the clauses and amendment that are the subject of this debate.
The debate in Committee confirmed that the Government have but one argument for changing the position that they adopted, on a provisional basis, during the consultations on this matter a couple of years ago. Their Green Paper, which was produced after many years of internal consideration, came to the clear-cut conclusion that the Government would prefer the abolition of the present national licensing arrangements and said that new discretionary powers should be given to districts and London boroughs. Thus, the proposal in new clause 4, proposed by the Opposition Front Bench, is on all fours with the view that the Government took about a year ago.
The Government have not explained their about-turn in response to the weight of the evidence. They have not said what the weight of the evidence was, but if they were to do so it would confirm that 10 of the reputable organisations that submitted evidence, such as the RSPCA and others, came out clearly in favour of a national dog licence, and only two opposed it.
A substantial number of individuals have also made views known. They have come to believe that it is necessary to get rid of the dog licence for the twin reasons that the present position is clearly ludicrous—there is no dissent about that—and that it is illogical to make responsible dog owners pay for irresponsible dog owners because there will always be people who do not apply for or pay for licences. Indeed, in Committee one of the Minister's hon. Friends admitted to being an example.
The fallacy of that argument is that there are many parallels in taxation policy where people are charged for the use or ownership of something, but where not everybody may pay. The example that comes most obviously to mind is that of the motor car. Not everybody who should do so pays the vehicle excise licence, but it is still the rule that the Exchequer benefits by collecting the money that goes into the pool to allow more money to be available for dealing with issues of transport and road policy. There are other examples.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there are even stronger arguments than the one that he is advancing. Most responsible dog owners, indeed all responsible dog owners, are concerned about animal welfare. They love their own dogs deeply and are concerned about those who do not properly cater for or look after their dogs. Most responsible dog owners would be happy to pay a higher licence fee if dogs were generally better catered for and looked after.

Mr. Hughes: I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point. I was here when he spoke yesterday, and I commend him for his speech on the subject and for his views. He has the additional merit of speaking from personal experience, which in this case, as in many others, is persuasive. Responsible dog owners are happy to pay the licence fee. I have not received any letters or representations from dog owners to say that they would not be happy about that, even if the fee were to be higher than the amount suggested —£10 is the most commonly quoted figure.
Like the Minister's hon. Friends who have spoken against the Government's view, I ask the Government to change their view, because it is illogical to ask responsible dog owners to pay for the irresponsible. The reality is that the community as a whole will have to continue to pay for dog control exercises, the kennelling of stray dogs and animal welfare. That will always be the case because of the minority of people who are not responsible dog owners.
Therefore, as the Government will argue tomorrow in relation to the poll tax, the fairest way would be a per capita payment. In this case it would be a per dog capita payment for the dogs that are owned, as opposed to a per human capita payment. Each contribution should be spent for the general benefit of the community.
The difference between new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and myself on behalf of the Liberal party, and new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on behalf of the Labour party, is that the latter provides for a national system, but with varying amounts. I agree that there is likely to be some antagonism if, across a border, the amount is different. That will detract from arguments about the principle of the issue. However, new clause 15 argues for a nationally

fixed, but locally collected and locally spent, fee. It seems right that local authorities should have the prime responsibility for collecting and spending the money. It is better that they should do so and, indeed, they are willing to do so.
I believe that the Minister accepts the general presumption that local authorities are in, as it were, the front line of dog control. He suggested in Committee that he supported the view that the responsibility for stray dogs, which is a separate but linked issue, should be taken from the police and handed to local authorities. I hope that he will expand on that and state that that is still the Government's view and that they intend to move in that direction soon.
The Government's position would be more defensible if they were to say that they would replace the money that would be lost—small though it is, or much larger as it would be if a £10 licence fee were the norm — by additional money for local authorities specifically to enable them to set up dog warden schemes and the like. However, I have never heard that said and, clearly, the Government have not said it. Local authorities have a right to be suspicious that the little that they receive at the moment will be taken away and that their capacity to deal with what is a major problem in rural and urban areas —often a major problem of environmental nuisance—will be severely diminished.
Ministers may have noticed that even the Kennel Club, an organisation which has, for some time, lobbied for the abolition of the dog licence fee, now says that it favours a tattooing system for the identification of dogs, for which there would need to be a registration system. Once that is in place, an administratively simple and cost-effective way of paying for the registration system would be through a licence fee. The Kennel Club is the only substantial single-interest body that has argued against the view proposed by my hon. Friends, the Opposition and some Conservative Back Benchers. It does not favour a licence, but favours an identification system. Therefore, even that body seems to have a qualified position.
For reasons that seem illogical, the Government have decided to move away from the proper steps which they implemented, by trial, in Northern Ireland and which have proved adequately successful there, of having a system of collecting revenue that would be spent on dealing with the difficult but important issue of dog control and welfare. The Government are sadly misguided. We hope that an amendment, either in the form of the new clause that has been tabled by my party, or in the form of one of the other Opposition new clauses or amendments, will be accepted before the Bill completes its passage through the House.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin:: One of the problems with the procedures of this House is that after an arduous period in Committee, when a subject comes back for further debate on Report, some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) feel that the debate is already over and that there is nothing more to say. It was a good thing that the debate was adjourned, because we have had some good speeches today from Opposition Members, who have promoted the new clause with much greater enthusiasm than did the hon. Member for Perry Barr himself.
In 1979, when I had the honour to be appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I discovered to my astonishment, and


that of my fellow Ministers, that for some reason the fee for the dog licence was fixed by that Department, although the Department of the Environment had the local government responsibilities for dog licences and the Home Office had the overall responsibility for all licensing. Eight years later, I believe that the dilemma of the then Government has been resolved in the wrong way. I am not in any doubt that it is a question of a toss of the coin in such matters because I appreciate that, whichever position the Government adopted, they would have some critics.
I remained of an open mind until quite recently when I became persuaded by the continual correspondence that I receive on this matter. It was not just one or two letters. Week after week, month after month, and year after year I have received letters from my constituents, especially those in the urban area, protesting about the complete lack of control over dogs in towns, in relation to dog mess, barking, lack of control over fierce dogs and other aspects. There is a substantial feeling that the issue must be resolved in the immediate future. Some of my councillors would agree that no single issue raises greater passion at local government level in Weston-super-Mare than that of dogs. Therefore, for many people, this is a much more serious issue than it may have sounded when we were debating it last night.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) has made most of the important points, so I shall not tire the House by repeating them. The dog licence is an additional form of taxation which, much to our cost, we have failed to increase year by year. The Government took a weak view on this — many years ago, I accept — and it has become increasingly more expensive to collect, and, in parallel, the problem of outof-control dogs has become worse.
It is rare for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union to agree on anything. When, for the first time in my memory, they do agree, backed by the British Veterinary Association and other responsible bodies, it is rather disappointing that the Government should take a contrary view.
5 pm
In defence of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government, may I say that the minds of the public have been considerably concentrated by the Government's firm decision. It was the announcement of that decision that led many bodies into an opposition in which they had not engaged before. Having done that, they have gathered a considerable amount of public opinion behind them. I fully accept that a more expensive licence of £5 or £10 would penalise the law-abiding dog owner who pays his licence, but I have not had any letters from dog owners saying that they did not think it desirable.
I have just returned from Norway, and the Norwegians have a completely different attitude to dogs. They look upon owning a dog as an exceptional privilege. Indeed, as anyone who has bought food in Norway will know, it is also a costly privilege. The Norwegian people require no further incentives for looking after their dogs. If they did, it would become a matter of national behaviour. A case of dog cruelty achieves headline status.
I shall listen with great interest to the argument about Northern Ireland dogs. My hon. and learned Friend will no doubt adduce some devious argument about why an

Ulster dog is different from an English or Welsh dog. I recall clearly that when the decision on that was made there was a sharp intake of breath at such courage from the Government. In fact, the measure went through with no difficulty. Licence fees are paid relatively well and, as has already been said, that is not so usual for Northern Ireland. It has enabled the proper control of dogs and wild packs no longer roam.
I cannot support the new clause in its entirety for the reasons that I have given, but I shall vote for it because the Government have gone the wrong way. I join my hon. Friends in saying that I hope that in another place they will give further thought to this. I have not yet heard a speech in support of the Government's view.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I do not want to repeat all the arguments about the desirability of a dog licence because they have been well and truly made. However, I have an interest because Scunthorpe borough council was one of the pioneers of the dog warden service. That service was introduced in response to local demand and the enormous problems caused by dogs.
All hon. Members who have spoken so far have conceded that dogs can be a considerable nuisance. It is evident from the letters that I receive from my constituents that dog owners favour a licence on the terms set out in the new clause. Just as all smokers are often blamed for the failings of the irresponsible minority of smokers, responsible dog owners are blamed for the failings of an irresponsible minority of dog owners. The dog licence is a measure of control which is much needed, particularly in urban areas. It also gives some protection to the dogs.
As has been mentioned, Christmas is traditionally the time when people buy puppies on the spur of the moment without taking into account the commitment that any pet requires. Indeed, some people collect dogs like others collect stamps, until they end up with a house full of them and that causes a nuisance through noise, smell and the problems in the streets. A properly funded dog warden service, with money going to local councils to fund it, is one way of tackling that problem.
All the responsible organisations are in favour of a dog licence. I have before me a letter from the National Farmers Union, which adds its weight to those organisations. The letter was also sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). The NFU argues strongly for a dog licence and points to the problem of livestock savaged each year by pets that are allowed to roam.
A dog licence is not the automatic solution to all the problems with stray dogs, but it is a step forward in tackling that problem. It is certainly a better solution than that proposed by the Government, which is no solution at all. The Government are missing an important opportunity to put the matter right and to tackle the problem. If they take that opportunity in the Bill they will have the support of all responsible dog owners and the majority of the British people.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: It is not uncommon for some major issues to pass calmly through the House, if not on the nod, certainly without the heat and light generated by this topic. But mention dogs, and calm goes out of the window and emotions — on both sides of the debate — take over. Last night confirmed that fact, even if the late hour was some excuse.
One accepts the need to protect livestock in rural areas, but I am not sure whether a licence is the way to achieve that. The problem is largely one for the urban areas. Let us agree on common ground. There is a need for a warden service to deal with strays and the public have a right to clean pavements and parklands free from dog soil. Both those objectives are, rightly, the responsibility of local government which needs the power to enact the necessary byelaws to meet that public demand and to enforce penalties where necessary.
Why should that general provision, unique among other general needs within local authorities, require a special licence which needs a bureaucracy to police it in order to provide the resources to pay for it? We pay for many general services through our rates which we never use, and, perhaps because of our age, will never use, but we pay none the less. That general rule should apply in this case.
I am puzzled why the Opposition should have tabled the new clause in this form, for deny it though he may, the heart of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was not in his speech last night, except for the customary passion for taxing everything that moves. None of the situations that he described would be diminished or solved by the imposition of a dog licence.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I said that, but the hon. Gentleman was asleep.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No, that is precisely my point. The hon. Member listed what he objected to and then admitted that the dog licence was no cure. Why on earth, then, put in for a licence?

Mr. Rooker: The point was that the licence provided the revenue to fund the dog warden scheme which would assist in dealing with those problems.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had clearly said that it would not, but perhaps we had better study Hansard again.
The Opposition have realised that the 7s 6d tax is nonsense and have chosen anything between £10 and £20 to replace it. However, as they are fearful of adverse reaction, they seek to make some exclusions for the elderly, which is fine at first sight, but it means quite a few hon. Members can keep a pet free. Are the disabled, the unemployed, the family on a low income and the single parent any less in need of the comfort and protection that a pet can give? Are they less deserving than those people mentioned in the amendment or than some Members of this House?
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) pointed out the inadequacies of the exclusions in the new clause. By the time he had finished speaking, I was convinced that he had convinced himself that the clause would not deliver and that he would probably join the Government in the Lobby tonight. When one goes down the exemption route, there is no end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said last night, the cost of policing the system will make the policing of the banded community charge or local income tax a piece of cake.
The abolition of the existing licence brings savings to the public purse. The immediate abolition means that the

public service will benefit by about £3 million. If that is so, may I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that some of that saving could be paid as block grant to the PDSA, the RSPCA and other bodies which do a wonderful job and would not necessarily be helped by the kind of licence fee mentioned in the clause.
Many daft things are done by local authorities up and down the land, but the provision of wardens, clean pavements and clean park space would have universal support from ratepayers, whatever the ultimate system of local taxation. However, a separate dog licence would not have such support.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to declare an interest and say that, although I do not have a dog, I have a parrot and two tortoises. As far as I am aware, no proposal has yet been made to license such pets, but if such a proposal were made, I would pay the licence with great pleasure.
I have received a number of letters about this subject. All have protested about the abolition of dog licences and that is why I want to intervene briefly. I cannot follow the Government's logic in respect of their proposals and that is why I support the new clause. The licence fee is too small and not worth collecting. In addition, too many dog owners fail to pay the licence, so the proposed solution is to scrap the licence.
If we apply the logic of failure to pay, we can see the ridiculous situation that would develop. We do not know the precise number of people, although it is quite large, who fail to pay their taxes. They fail to pay their television licences. That includes the Prime Minister who has, as I understand it, 13 television sets in No. 10 Downing street, yet she does not have to pay any licence fee. That is not failure to pay, but she has been given a discretion so that she does not have to pay. Many people do not pay the television licence fee or the road fund tax for their cars. I have yet to hear any Conservative Member say that, because of failure to pay, we should scrap those taxes. The Government are in a difficult position when it comes to logic.
5.15 pm
I am raising this somewhat sniffy subject because, in the east end of London, many people keep dogs as pets. It is a tradition and, if anyone looks around the parks in the east end at weekends, he will see how many people keep dogs. They do so for a number of reasons, including companionship and protection of their property. The many burglaries, car thefts and street crimes in the east end encourage people to keep dogs not so much as pets but as protectors. That is why we have so many large and somewhat vicious dogs in the east end, but most of them have responsible owners. They are certainly far more responsible than the Earl of Leven.
I refer hon. Members to early-day motion 432, tabled by several Labour Members, in respect of the conduct of the Earl of Leven and the sentence imposed by Inverness sheriff court, which states
That this House condemns the conduct of the Earl of Leven J.P., Lord Lieutenant of Nairnshire and Chairman of the Governors of Gordonstoun College,"—
I understand that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales went there, so I hope that he did not learn anything from the Earl of Leven—
who fractured the skull of a terrier dog which had wandered onto his grouse moor, attacking the animal with such force that the instrument used, a walking-stick, broke; deplores the


leniency of sentence imposed by Inverness Sheriff Court; believes that £75 fines are unlikely to deter thugs and hooligans; and calls for the Earl of Leven to be stripped of all public offices.
I am sure that dog lovers on both sides of the House will warmly endorse the words of early-day motion 432.
Fortunately, the dog owners and the people of Newham do not follow such vile practices. The dog owners of the east end are responsible, but, unfortunately, problems arise from keeping dogs as pets. The immediate problem in an urban environment is the dog mess produced in car parks, streets, open spaces, parks and many other areas where children play and people go. That is very distressing.
I find it distressing when I am walking to my newspaper shop in the morning to get my copy of The Daily Telegraph.—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is a serious point. I like to know what the Government are saying from morning to morning, so I buy a number of other newspapers. When I walk, to the newspaper shop just around the corner from my home in the London borough of Newham, I spend most of my time with my shoulders stooping and my eyes on the pavement. That is not merely because of the problems that I bear on my shoulders as a representative of an inner-city area. It is also to avoid stepping in all the piles of dog mess on the pavement. It is a serious problem which is accepted by Members on both sides of the House. I shall step lightly, as they say, on this matter, but it is a serious problem which brings many complaints to me, as the local Member of Parliament, and to local councillors.
There are some advantages in having one's eyes transfixed on the pavement in an attempt to avoid the dog mess. The other day I found 1·20 on the short walk to the newspaper shop. When I reached the newspaper shop, I put that money in the box for cancer research because it is the only way that cancer wards and the Cancer Research Campaign will receive adequate funds. The Government will not provide the funds needed for cancer research. In this country, we rely on charity to deal with the serious aspects of society. When it comes to such matters as defence, there is no such thing as charity appeals or flag days —[interruption] I understand what you are indicating to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There was an occasion when I walked round the corner and was faced with the terrible dilemma of seeing a £1 coin embedded in a dog turd. I was left with a problem. There was a natural, primitive, capitalist, acquisitive instinct and a need for hygiene. As it happened on that occasion, hygiene won. But I managed to find a small boy who, for a crack of 50p, was prepared to retrieve the coin. He washed his hands in my house, and we put the money in the cancer box.
We know that 4,000 stray dogs are registered every week. That is appalling. We talk about being a nation of dog lovers. We are actually a nation of dog killers. Hon Members on both sides of the House will find that appalling. At any given moment, there are 500,000 stray dogs on British streets. About 200 stray dogs are destroyed every week. We are coming up to the Christmas period. Parents will be buying presents for their children. Unfortunately, regrettably, lamentably, many parents will buy puppies as pets for their children.
Hon. Members who represent constituencies outside London, particularly constituencies with motorways going through them, know that I speak the truth when I say that

dogs are literally thrown out of cars on motorways. They are abandoned at the side of motorways. That is a tragedy, and it should make us all feel ashamed.
We cannot just walk away from the problem. We cannot just say that, because people fail to pay the licence fee, we should abandon it. We should establish a properly funded dog warden scheme that is paid for by the licence fees that are paid by responsible dog owners. The new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) would bring in only a fraction of the annual costs of keeping a dog. Therefore, no responsible dog owner would refuse to pay the licence fee. It would enable us to fund a proper dog warden scheme. Therefore, I ask all hon. Members to support the new clause.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) demonstrated the paucity of the anti-licence argument when he described stray dogs as an urban problem. If they are an urban problem, why is the NFU so opposed to abolition? I gently suggest to him that any hon. Member who has had the sad opportunity to see a flock of sheep being savaged by a wild dog knows that strays are not simply an urban problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) touched on the possible rabies problem. Hon. Members who were present in the Chamber late last night heard my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) give perhaps one of the most moving pieces of personal testimony that the House has heard for a long time. He described how his own child was affected by a parasite that was picked up from dog mess and, as a result, is now blind in one eye.
It is a problem of control. The Government appear to recognise that fact. In their Green Paper, they said that they had carefully weighed the arguments, that the principal aim of abolition should be to promote responsible dog ownership, and that abolition would not best serve that purpose. In the words of the National Farmers Union, choosing abolition would be to throw away the means of financing proper dog control, the obvious way of tracing the owner of a stray, the potential deterrent to casual purchases, and, indeed, all hope of improvement in dog control in the future.
The legislation envisaged by the Government would provide for registration schemes to include mandatory fee exemptions for guide dogs for the blind and working sheep dogs and discretionary exemptions and part-exemptions for other categories such as dogs owned by the elderly. Were that legislation being proposed by the Government, I and, I suspect, most of my colleagues and many Opposition Members would support it.
The new clause porposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will have my support. Opposition Members were kind enough in Committee to give me their support when I invited my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to put forward his own proposals. I do not support all aspects of the proposed new clause. The exemptions are too wide and I am not certain that allocating all the revenue solely to a dog warden service is the right priority. I firmly believe that the prerequisite of any dog control system must be an efficient registration scheme. When we raised the matter in Committee, my hon. and learned Friend said:


It is already a legal requirement that a dog should wear a collar with a plate or disc showing the owner's name or address while on a highway or in a public place… … There is provision for local authorities to make byelaws relating to the fouling of pavements and grass verges and to ban dogs from certain beaches and parks. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is also prepared to approve byelaws requiring the person in charge of a dog to clear up the mess deposited by the dog in certain places — the so-called poop-scoop byelaw …Roads on which dogs must be kept on leads can be designated. None of those provisions is dependent on licensing.
Again, there is comprehensive legislation to afford the farmer protection under which he can gain redress from the keeper of the dog and, indeed, if it is the only way to stop an attack, as a defence, he may shoot the dog. Again I stress that that is entirely independent of licensing.
In Committee, I challenged my hon. and learned Friend. Every one of the regulations that are presently available is dependent upon identification of a dog. Without an efficient registration system, it is not possible to identify an animal, and it is therefore not possible to bring a successful prosecution. I put that point in Committee. My hon. and learned Friend, who has established in this House a reputation for intelligence, courtesy, and, particularly, for precision, said:
I do not entirely accept that". [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1196.]
If my hon. and learned Friend does not entirely accept that, being the precise gentleman that he is, I suggest that, by implication, he must accept part of it. The laws and byelaws upon which the abolitionist case has rested are worthless without a proper means of registration. Many reputable organisations have been named. They are wholly opposed to abolition. Apparently, only one organisation is in favour of abolition, and that is PRO Dogs. Speaking on its behalf last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said that licensing was not necessary and that, to control dogs, we need "identification and fines."
How does one identify an animal and the owner of an animal without a registration system? The British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals favour a licensing scheme. The latter society is particularly relevant. In a letter which I suspect that most hon. Members will have seen, its director stated:
so far the new licensing scheme"—
which this Government introduced in 1983—
has been a great success. Not only are dogs being looked after better now, but far fewer are suffering from the actions of irresponsible and uncaring owners. I personally"—
this is, the director of the Ulster society—
feel that the changing attitude towards dogs in this country is very, very encouraging.
5.30 pm
In support of that sentiment, the National Farmers' Union says that it would like to see
the extension to the rest of the United Kingdom of the véry welcome and successful measures which the Government introduced in 1982–83 to control dogs in Northern Ireland, including a licence fee of £5.… We do earnestly believe that the Government has made the wrong decision on this matter and would urge you to assist in seeking a change of mind.
That is what the NFU has written to many hon. Members, including members of the Standing Committee.
It was made plain in Committee that at this stage the Government have no desire to change their mind. There is a growing and very responsible body of opinion that believes that registration is not only necessary but possible. Tattooing has been mentioned. The British Veterinary Association has given a clear undertaking that its members could carry out painlessly the tattoing registration process and supply the necessary documentation to a central register, be it controlled by Government bureacracy or, as I would prefer, by the BVA itself or the Kennel Club.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) thought that the fee proposed in the new clause was too high. In the context of the £200 to £300 that it costs to keep a dog properly fed and in receipt of proper veterinary care an additional £10 licence fee is not a great deal to pay in return for the service that would be provided by registration. Considerable distress is caused to even the most responsible of dog owners whose animals go astray. Dogs go after bitches in heat and the families live in considerable anxiety, often for some time, not knowing where the dog is, although it may be in safe care but unidentified. Registration would be a control factor and would also be of considerable value to dog owners. That is recognised by dog owners, of whom I am one.
I said in Committee that I would table a new clause. I studied carefully the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Perry Barr. As I have said, I do not believe that it is perfect, but it is worthy of support from both sides of the House. This is not a party political matter. The new clause has sufficient meat in it to enable my hon. and learned Friend to think again and come back with suitable amendments. I hope that in another place the noble Lords will consider what has been said in this debate and in Committee and will introduce the necessary amendments. I look forward to supporting those Lords amendments when they come to this House.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): This has been an extremely interesting debate. The House has benefited particularly from the historical perspectives that were brought to our consideration of the issues by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who gave us the benefit of their experience, drew to the attention of the House the shifting sands of the different policies that Governments and Oppositions of both political parties have adopted on the matter in the past, and spoke of some of the surprises that they encountered when they first took on their responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, who has explained why he cannot be with us, was a little unfair when he said that the Government were guilty of the same sin as the Labour Government in their consideration of the matter. He reminded the House that he, from the Opposition Benches, had espoused a policy similar to that espoused by the Opposition during our deliberations yesterday and today, but the Government then had refused to take action. That accusation cannot be levelled against this Government. We have decided to take action. We have decided to do away once and for all with the nonsense of the existing system, which has not found any friend on either side of the House during the debate. It is true, of course, that we have not achieved unanimous support for the action that we propose, but one cannot have everything.
There is far from being unanimity amongst our critics. In Committee there were at least four different proposals as to what the Government should do. I judge that during the debate almost as many alternatives have been advanced as there have been hon. Members who have spoken. We have heard proposals for a national system, a "Swansea for dogs", as it was aptly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). The Opposition propose a system under which local authorities would be free to determine the licence fee within prescribed limits. We have had the idea of local schemes, with a nationally determined licence fee, index-linked. We have also heard about what was described as a simple system, with licences and tags on sale in corner shops and post offices.
None of those proposals addresses two fundamental points. The first, which is crucial to consideration of the issue, is that we do not need a licensing system to have an effective body of law covering the control and welfare of dogs. I shall not weary the House by listing again the various elements that exist in the present law. Indeed, a large number of them were put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), to whose persistence and diligence in the pursuit of his campaign I pay tribute. None of the extensive range of legislation in existence, and none of the need for action to be taken, depends in any way upon licensing.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) were brought into operation, with the exemptions that it allows, approximately one third of dogs would not need a licence? Therefore, the whole basis of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve would fail. What we need is an effective identification scheme, not a licensing scheme.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's estimate sounds reasonable, but I cannot confirm it precisely. His point is accurate. Of course, there is an identification scheme in the law as it stands. Under the Control of Dogs Order 1930 a dog must wear a collar with a plate or disc attached, bearing the owner's name and address, when it is on a highway or in a public place. The penalty for noncompliance is a fine of up to £2,000. So the law is there. What no one has yet been able to establish during the debate is why a different law, designed to achieve the same objective, will be any more effective.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not understand. The Minister has said that if a dog in a public place does not have the necessary identification, a fine of £2,000 is applicable. If the dog does not have any means of identification, how can the law be enforced?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, with his customary shrewdness, has identified a difficulty in enforcing the present law. It is not a difficulty that is unique to the present law. That difficulty would be unique to any system of registration and licensing. If a dog that was found did not carry any means of identification, the very same difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has so shrewdly identified would arise, regardless of the system in force.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that if resources are available it is likely that fewer dogs will be left unregistered and that the consequential activities could be carried out more effectively? If no money is derived from a licence, no such resources will be available.

Mr. Howard: I believe that that is a highly optimistic assessment. It is unrealistic to suppose that the resources that would become available—especially as a result of the new clause tabled by the Opposition, and subject to the limits that were pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown — would he anything like sufficient to provide an effective system along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: The sum of £40 million would be raised.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept that estimate. One must bear in mind the limitations described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown.

Mr. Rooker: There are 6 million dogs.

Mr. Howard: I do not believe that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr, (Mr. Rooker) understood the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown.
Local authorities are free to appoint dog wardens, and many of them do so. I am happy to confirm the undertaking that I gave in Committee. In fact, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did not get it right when he reported it to the House this afternoon. I did not undertake to take powers away from the police and give them to local authorities. I gave an undertaking to consider giving local authorities additional powers parallel to those that the police presently hold. We are considering that undertaking, and if we come to the conclusion that that would be a sensible thing to do we shall take the appropriate steps in another place.
If we consider the examples that were given by the hon. Member for Perry Barr during the debate yesterday evening, we can appreciate that the system that he has advocated would not get to grips with the problem. The House will recall that the hon. Gentleman gave us a vivid example of the postman who, having been bitten, had to return to the house to deliver a letter of complaint to the householder. In those circumstances, there was no difficulty in identifying the owner of the dog. I fail to see how things are improved if, in addition to having to return to the house to deliver a letter of complaint from the head postmaster, the postman has to make another visit, either before or after the incident—indeed, it may provoke a further incident—to deliver the licence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) described, with an emotion that was more moving for its restraint, the effect on his child of toxicariasis. No one would seek to underestimate the significance of that disease, which causes about. 50 cases of eye damage every year. The risks can be reduced by regular wormings of dogs and the exclusion of clogs from children's play areas. Local authorities have the power to impose such a ban. Here again, the problem is not affected by the existence of a licence.
The second fundamental point that the alternative proposals fail to address is enforceability and the consequence of a large increase in the licence fee. We can reasonably assume that the responsible and caring owner would buy a licence. However, it is by no means certain, to put it mildly, that there would be a significant effect on the irresponsible and careless owner. Presently, that latter group do not pay a fee of 37p, and it seems rather optimistic to suppose that they would more likely to pay a fee of £10 or £20. That assumption is at the heart of the various new clauses that have been tabled.

Mr. Marlow: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, he must decide whether he is the chicken or the egg with regard to this argument. If a scheme is set up on the grounds advocated by the Opposition Front Bench there will be the necessary resources to pay for a system of dog wardens. That system of dog wardens would enforce registration, licensing and the collection of the fees. Therefore, the money would be available to ensure that those who do not pay the licence fee would be required to do so in the future.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Look at Northern Ireland.

Mr. Howard: I can only return to the answer that I gave earlier. I believe that it is wildly optimistic to suppose that the dog wardens who might be appointed in the circumstances that we are presently discussing would be able to clean up the dog mess, which has proved so tantalising to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), deal with dangerous dogs, which have bitten postmen and others, deal with stray dogs, and deal with those owners who do not license their dogs.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to Northern Ireland, but I believe that experience in the Province has demonstrated that the licensing fee has not had any significant effect on the number of stray dogs that have been found and impounded. The experience in Northern Ireland does not support the argument.

Mr. Marlow: I know that my hon. and learned Friend is defending a prepared position, but before he reaches any conclusion about what measures to introduce in another place will he consider the scheme that is employed in the Medway towns? My hon. and learned Friend said that the dog wardens would be unable to cure all the ills and problems, but in those towns, which have an effective system of dog wardens, those problems have been resolved. It can be done.

Mr. Howard: If such problems can be resolved in the Medway towns without the imposition of a licence, I do not see why they cannot be resolved elsewhere without such a licence.
The local authorities are perfectly capable of dealing with the matter. If they have the necessary money as a result of economy in other areas—this is the case with councils in the Medway towns and there is no reason why councils elsewhere should not practice similar economies — they can use such available resources as are considered appropriate by their residents and voters to deal with that problem.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister believe that the objectives for which he has expressed support and which are commonly supported by the House—cleaning up dog mess, rescuing strays and the advancement of animal welfare—would be more, or less, likely to be advanced by the collection of £10 per dog? That collected sum could be £40 million. Are the objectives more, or less, likely to be advantaged by that available money?

Mr. Howard: That is not by any means the only question, because a question of fairness enters into this matter. The real question is whether the burden of paying for the necessary measures to deal with the problems should rest upon all ratepayers or community charge payers in an area, or simply upon those dog owners who

are responsible enough to pay and who therefore shoulder the burden that those dog owners who are sufficiently irresponsible not to pay are not prepared to shoulder.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Gale: rose—

Mr. Howard: I have given way twice to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North.

Mr. Gale: A few moments ago, in response to a sedentary intervention, my hon. and learned Friend referred to the situation in Northern Ireland and suggested that there had been virtually no reduction in the number of strays. I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend would not wish to mislead the House. Therefore, he should consider what the director of the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said:
In the years following the new legislation in Northern Ireland, the number of dogs licensed increased by almost 60 per cent. over the years immediately preceding the changeover. Significantly, the number of dogs destroyed has also decreased considerably.
There are generally far fewer strays roaming the streets". Is my hon. Friend saying that the director of the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is wrong?

Mr. Howard: I am saying that the information available to my hon. Friend is different from that with which I have been supplied, so I cannot take that aspect of the matter further. What happened in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North will know, is that, when the working party was set up in 1976, it examined various matters and came to the conclusion that there was a particular problem in Northern Ireland which was much more serious than that which existed in the rest of the United Kingdom, so special measures had to be taken there.
It is easy to identify, to wax eloquent upon and to be extremely witty and amusing about the various aspects of nuisance which have been, and are caused by, dogs in this country. That has played a prominent part in the speech of every hon. Member who has taken part in this debate, but it is not really the issue before the House, which is: given that local authorities have powers to deal with this matter and that we are prepared to consider extending those powers, should the resources that may be necessary to deal with it be provided by all the people of the area concerned, or by responsible dog owners, who are at present a minority of dog owners? There is no great positive basis for supposing that the number of people who would take out a licence if the fee were increased would increase. I invite the House to take the view that this would be an undue burden to place on responsible dog owners, which is why I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Rooker: The Minister's response at the end of his speech was interesting. He rehearsed the argument about whether dog owners should fund the dog warden scheme, and contradicted the whole thrust of the Government's view on introducing charges for services — that those who use a service should pay for it. That argument is implicit in the Opposition's new clause, yet on this occasion the Government are rejecting it. So they are contradicting their stance on other matters.
There is no requirement for the whole dog warden service to be funded by the licence. The new clause states that the money raised


shall be allocated by the authority to the funding of a dog warden service".
The point is that all the money from the licence must be used for funding the dog warden service, which does not stop a local authority adding to that money from its own resources. We would not want money from the dog licence to be used on other local authority services if there was no adequate dog warden scheme. I have made the point, as has every hon. Member on both sides of the House who has supported the new clause, that having a licence will not of itself solve the problem. The discussion has been about how to obtain the resources to assist in solving what is, by common consent, a major problem.
I accept that—with the exclusions—we would not obtain, say, £10 per dog for the 6 million dogs in this country. We are not looking for £60 million. About 2 million dogs might be excluded, which would yield £40 million. If half the dog owners pay the licence, we will end up with £20 million. That is a lot more than the £900,000 that we get from today's dog licence, which represents a negative cost because one has to pay £3·5 million to collect it.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister put the curious argument that an increase in the cost of a dog licence would not affect those who evade payment. The Government never use that argument against increasing the television licence fee. I have never heard them argue that the television licence fee cannot be increased because that will not encourage people to pay the licence. It is absurd.

Mr. Rooker: That is right. This is an area in which the Government have abdicated their responsibilities. The Minister's speech showed that. He admitted that the Government had no answer. He tried to come up with an answer — that dogs will still require collars in public places under the law, and that failure to wear them will attract a fine. So the next time we find dogs in public places, we will tell them that they are not supposed to be there without collars, or they will be subject to fines. It would be better if the dog warden took the dogs in hand, being funded to do so by those who paid the licence.
The new clause is not a perfect solution. I said in Committee that we should return to the matter on Report so that the House could make the decision. When the Opposition propose what is, by any stretch of the imagination, a substantial increase in taxation, it is an unwise Government who do not accept that gift and realise that they can, perhaps, obtain something from it. However, that is the Government's problem.
I do not accept the Minister's argument—I have said this before, and I shall keep on saying it—that there is justification in having a dog warden scheme that is wholly funded by the poll tax. That will be the result if the dog licence is abolished. I hope that the other place will examine the matter and give us another opportunity to debate it.
Having or not having a dog licence, at whatever cost, is not by any means a central plank of Government economic policy. The seriousness of the problem caused by dogs, which was illustrated last night and earlier today, has warranted a few hours' discussion. The House has spent fewer than three hours on the issue, and all that time has been warranted. What is not warranted and will not be understood by the public is the fact that we must have a whipped vote. I sincerely believe that if there were a free vote and the House could decide this matter, we would

vote to impose a dog licence of some sort to run a dog warden scheme of some sort, and I should he delighted at that.
I invite Conservative Members to join us. This is not an issue on which the Government will fall; it is not a matter of confidence. It is not like the poll tax; it is not a massive issue that will cause trouble with the Whips. I ask Conservative Members for once to do something to benefit their constituents. The new clause is not perfect, but it will force the Government to re-examine the issue in another place.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 286.

Division No. 113]
[5.55 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Eastham, Ken


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Alton, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Anderson, Donald
Fatchett, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fearn, Ronald


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Paddy
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Barron, Kevin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Battle, John
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Galbraith, Samuel


Bermingham, Gerald
Gale, Roger


Blair, Tony
Galloway, George


Boateng, Paul
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bowis, John
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Boyes, Roland
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gould, Bryan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buckley, George
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Callaghan, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Haynes, Frank


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Douglas


Clay, Bob
Hinchlifle, David


Clelland, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hood, James


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Geraint


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cummings, J.
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Dr John
Ingram, Adam


Dalyell, Tarn
Irving, Charles


Darling, Alastair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
John, Brynmor


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles


Doran, Frank
Kilfedder, James


Dover, Den
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dunnachie, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lambie, David


Eadie, Alexander
Lamond, James






Leighton, Ron
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Reid, John


Lewis, Terry
Richardson, Ms Jo


Litherland, Robert
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Geoffrey


Livsey, Richard
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, Jeff


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Ian
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McLeish, Henry
Short, Clare


McTaggart, Bob
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Steinberg, Gerald


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Wall, Pat


Morley, Elliott
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Walley, Ms Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N.


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Nellist, Dave
Wiggin, Jerry


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, William
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Brian


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter
Worthington, Anthony


Prescott, John
Wray, James


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Ray Powell and


Randall, Stuart
Mrs. Llin Golding.


Redmond, Martin



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amess, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amos, Alan
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkinson, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's


Batiste, Spencer
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Bellingham, Henry
Budgen, Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Burns, Simon


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, W.
Butler, Chris





Butterfill, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cash, William
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Irvine, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Janman, Timothy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, John
Knapman, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Couchman, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cran, James
Knowles, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Knox, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lang, Ian


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Latham, Michael


Day, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Dicks, Terry
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dunn, Bob
Lightbown, David


Durant, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Farr, Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Major, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Peter
Maples, John


Gardiner, George
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Miller, Hal


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grist, Ian
Moss, Malcolm


Ground, Patrick
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Newton, Tony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Cranley


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Heddle, John
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Holt, Richard
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David






Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Sumberg, David


Rathbone, Tim
Summerson, Hugo


Redwood, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Renton, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Riddick, Graham
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thurnham, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Hon Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Scott, Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walters, Dennis


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Ward, John


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watts, John


Skinner, Dennis
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Speller, Tony
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Jim (Dorset VI)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Mike


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stern, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stevens, Lewis



Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

CONTRACTS COMPLIANCE IN RELATION TO PUBLIC SUPPLY OR WORKS CONTRACTS (No. 2)

`(1) It is the duty of every public authority to which this section applies, in exercising in relation to its public supply or works contracts, any proposed or any subsisting such contract, as the case may be, any function regulated by section 17 to exercise that function with reference to the enforcement of the law by any appropriate agency and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment.
(2) The public authorities to which this section applies are those specified in Schedule 2 to this Act.
(3) The contracts whic are public supply or work contracts for the purposes of this section are contracts for the supply of goods or materials, for the supply of services or for the execution of works.
(4) A local authority may in pursuance of the functions regulated by this section, have regard to any of the following:—

(a) the terms and conditions of employment by contractors of their workers, the arrangements for the training of their workforces, or the employment (in the case of an inner city area or region of high unemployment) of a reasonable percentage of their workforce from among the local unemployed which shall be determined by the authority;
(b) the actual or potential membership of contractors of industrial, trade or professional associations, technical guarantee schemes or any other associations or schemes pertaining to their competence to perform the contract;

(c) in cooperation with the relevant local employment office, the employment by contractors of disabled people in accordance with the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

(5) In this section, any term defined in section 17 (8) below shall having the meaning thereby ascribed to it.
(6) In this section, 'inner city area' and 'region of high unemployment' shall have the meanings set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(7) The provisions of sections 17 to 21 shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.
(8) This section shall have effect from the date of Royal Assent.'.—[Dr. Cunningham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 301.

Division No. 114]
[6.11 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Eastham, Ken


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Alton, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Anderson, Donald
Fatchett, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fearn, Ronald


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Paddy
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Beckett, Margaret
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; FTdish)
Galbraith, Samuel


Bermingham, Gerald
Galloway, George


Blair, Tony
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Boateng, Paul
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Boyes, Roland
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gould, Bryan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buckley, George
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clay, Bob
Henderson, Douglas


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Hood, James


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cummings, J.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tarn
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alastair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
John, Brynmor


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles


Doran, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dunnachie, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lambie, David


Eadie, Alexander
Lamond, James






Leighton, Ron
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Reid, John


Lewis, Terry
Richardson, Ms Jo


Litherland, Robert
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Geoffrey


Livsey, Richard
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, Jeff


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Clare


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


McTaggart, Bob
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerald


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Vaz, Keith


Morley, Elliott
Wall, Pat


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Wallace, James


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Walley, Ms Joan


Mullin, Chris
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N.


Nellist, Dave
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


O'Brien, William
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter
Worthington, Anthony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wray, James


Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Primarolo, Ms Dawn



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Radice, Giles
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Frank Cook.


Redmond, Martin



NOES


Adley, Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Allason, Rupert
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Aspinwall, Jack
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkins, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkinson, David
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Batiste, Spencer
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Burns, Simon


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burt, Alistair


Benyon,W.
Butler, Chris


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butterfill, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)





Carrington, Matthew
Howard, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cash, William
Howarth, G (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Sir W (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K (Rushcliffe)
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Timothy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Knox, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Ian


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lightbown, David


Fallon, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Farr, Sir John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lord, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, M (Newbury)


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, P (New Forest)


Fry, Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, George
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maude, Hon Francis


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miller, Hal


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Mills, Iain


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedhng)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Hon A (Epsom)
Morrison, Hon C (Devizes)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moynihan, Hon C


Hannam, John
Mudd, David


Hargreaves, A (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neale, Gerrard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, Christopher
Newton, Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Miss E (Devon W)


Heddle, John
Onslow, Cranley


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Page, Richard


Hill, James
Paice, James


Hind, Kenneth
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Holt, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Sumberg, David


Portillo, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Powell, William (Corby)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Price, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Raffan, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rathbone, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Redwood, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thornton, Malcolm


Riddick, Graham
Thurnham, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trotter, Neville


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rost, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rowe, Andrew
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ryder, Richard
Walden, George


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Scott, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walters, Dennis


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Ward, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wells, Bowen


Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire. Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Rt Hon George


Steen, Anthony



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

DEFINED AUTHORITIES

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 21, at end insert
`a parish council, a community council'.
I expect that many Opposition Members will be concerned that the Government are proposing to impose compulsory competition upon the only level of local government not already covered by the Bill. We are proposing the amendment because not all parish or community councils are any longer the very small-scale operations which people commonly believe them to be. Some large parish councils operate certain services on a similar scale to smaller districts, and could benefit from competition in the same way as other local authorities. For example, the extent of some ground maintenance work undertaken by parish councils can be considerable, including parks, picnic areas and open spaces.
There would be little logic in obliging a small district to go out to competition for such activities, while not

applying the duty to a parish or community council which was in fact operating them on a larger scale. Most parish councils will be unaffected by this provision if the £100,000 de minimis threshold which we have proposed is implemented, as I expect it to be. Even if we are talking about no more than a few dozen councils being affected, the amendment will ensure that there is a common approach to all local authorities. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the amendment is fully justified and will support it.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister is right: Opposition Members are opposed to the inclusion of parish and community councils in the provisions of the Bill. We consider that parish and community councils are unsuitable for inclusion. As we are opposed to all local athorities and all bodies being included, we are opposed to the inclusion of community and parish councils in competitive tendering, but there are special reasons which apply to community and parish councils.
We thought that the Government were being logical in leaving such councils out of the provisions of the Bill. We thought that the Government had recognised the bureaucracy that would be imposed on small community and parish councils. Whatever the Minister says about their size, parish and community councils are small compared with most local authorities and district councils. The bureaucracy imposed on local government by the procedure of competitive tendering and the need to submit all the necessary forms to the Secretary of State were such that, in view of the size and the budgets of community and parish councils, we thought that the Government had reasonably decided to leave them out of the legislation, but obviously they were left out as an oversight. The Government are so doctrinaire that they want to include everything, even though it will cost ratepayers more money than it will save.
Most community councils are either in the north of England or in Scotland; there are few elsewhere. The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 defines the function of community councils as follows:
In addition to any other purpose which a community council may pursue, the general purpose of a community council shall be to ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the local authorities for its area, and to public authorities, the views of the community which it represents, in relation to matters for which those authorities are responsible, and to take such action in the interests of that community as appears to it to be expedient and practicable.
Not many of those functions need to go out to competitive tendering. It is nonsense for the Government to put out to competitive tendering consultation and representation to the local authorities in whose areas the community councils operate.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 provides about the financing of community councils:
islands and district councils may make such contribution as they think fit towards the expenses of community councils within their areas, may make loans to those councils, and may, at the request of such community councils, provide them with staff, services, accommodation, furniture, vehicles and equipment, on such terms as to payment or otherwise as may be agreed between the councils concerned.
In other words, many parish and community councils have no major functions, no revenue-raising powers and no money, but they must still go out to competitive tender. That is nonsense. The Minister is right about the de minimis threshold of £100,000. "De minimis" means that any contract below that threshold does not have to go out


to competitive tender because the amount of money that the Government suppose might be saved by competitive tendering—and there are many examples of money being lost through competitive tender—would be less than the bureaucracy of going out to competitive tender. We believe that the threshold is too low. However, 90 per cent. of any function that any parish or community council may have to put out to competitive tender would be below that de minimis level. There is no doubt about that.
The Government's doctrinaire attitude means that they will not let anybody or anything escape; they must impose their free market philosophy on even the smallest community or parish council, even if that is bureaucratic and will cost the ratepayers more money, just for the sake of making sure that the private sector can take any pickings from community and parish councils. Opposition Members oppose the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I also oppose the amendment strongly — as do the organisations representing the parish and community councils. They feel aggrieved not least because the Government expressly said—this year—that they would not be included.
Let me deal with the history of the measure. In the original 1985 Green Paper on competition in the provision of public services, the Government said explicitly that parish and community councils would not be included in the legislation to make competitive tendering compulsory. That statement was repeated in a letter, I think, from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—

Mr. Chope: indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman confirms that.
The Minister wrote to the chairman of the National Association of Local Councils in March 1987 to confirm that parish and community councils would be left out of the provisions. The proposals went out in November for consultation. The Government left one week for consultation; the parish and community councils, of which there are 8,500, had one week to consider the matter. The consultations resulted in a mass of objections in principle. Subsequently the Government changed their mind.
Even more surprising and appalling is the fact that the Government's reason, which was given by an official of the Department of the Environment to an official of the National Association of Local Councils on 10 December —I shall quote it almost verbatim—was that they had not been aware of the extent to which individual parish councils spend substantial sums on activities covered by the Bill. The Department of the Environment, which runs local government in England, and to an extent elsewhere, was not aware of what the parish and community councils were doing.
The regular refrain is heard from the opposition parties that it is not a good thing that the Government have centralised powers and taken them away from local government. We argue regularly, vociferously, forcefully and, I believe, convincingly that it is impossible for a relatively few officials in Marsham street to know what is going on at county, metropolitan district, London borough and district level — let alone at parish, town and community level. That assertion is explicitly confirmed in the Government's response.
The first and most substantial argument against the amendment is that the Government are being thoroughly dishonest and are indulging in thoroughly bad practice. They are going against everything that democratic government should be about. They are rushing in at the last moment contrary to their express word, and they deserve to have the book thrown at them, and worse.
We always try to anticipate what Ministers will say. The Minister may say, "If we are to include district, borough and county councils, it is illogical not to include parish and community councils." That is one argument. However, the Government are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am advised that 70 out of 8,500 parish councils provide services costing more than the 100,000 de minimis sum to which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) referred. The argument may come back, "If there are only 70 councils in that category, why worry?" There are many reasons for worry and I shall address them now.
First, the Government's real motivation may not be that it is not logical to exclude parish and community councils. The real motivation may have arisen from the consultations on sports and leisure facilities, which revealed, as they were bound to reveal, that many parish and community councils have parish, village or community halls which could fall within the provisions on competitive tendering.
My second point is an important one and I should be grateful if the Minister would go further than he did in Committee. We do not yet know the exact nature of the relative cost-benefit advantage that the Government say requires them to legislate.
The Minister will remember that in Committee Ministers commented a couple of times that if the costs to local authorities of complying with competitive tendering requirements were greater than the benefits that would result, there would be a case for exemptions. Clearly, that was a statement only of outline, because we did not receive any further information on it. Is the Minister yet in a position to say what the exemptions will be? If he is serious in arguing this complete about-turn, I hope that he will say that the Government will grant exemptions in cases in which the cost-benefit is negative or doubtful and that, although in theory and in law parish and community councils are to be brought within the terms of the legislation, the Government propose to exempt them because they can see the strong economic arguments against their inclusion.
I ask the Minister to repeat the statement that he made in Committee, so that the whole House can hear it, that exemptions will be considered and that the Government support the idea of exemptions if the cost of competitive tendering is less than the benefit. Will he tell us what that will mean in practice? Why have not the Government introduced an amendment to that effect at this stage? Will the Government at least tell us that we shall get such an amendment in the other place and tell us its import?
The expenditure of parish and community councils on services will very rarely exceed £100,000. In almost every instance it will cost more to put services out to competitive tender—tender specifications will have to be prepared, bids assessed and additional staff employed — than competitive tendering can possibly save. Do the Government accept the assertion that, even when parish and community councils come within the remit because


the sums that they spend do not fall below the £100,000 cut-off point, they are ripe for exemption because of that cost-benefit disadvantage?
There will not be many private companies to do the work of tending open spaces in villages and remote rural communities. The experts will be the employees of the parish and community councils, who know the local area. They will tender for the work and win the contracts. Therefore, the tendering process will be a frightful waste of money. The Government say that they want to reduce the burden of taxation — whether through local government in the form of rates or otherwise, yet they now propose to impose an additional burden on this much-respected, much-loved tier of local government, which for many people is the closest to home.
The National Association of Local Councils and the Association for Neighbourhood Councils oppose the amendment. I hope that it will be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this debate to continue, if necessary—albeit for a relatively short time—so that we can hear what the Government have to say to justify their complete U-turn on this matter. This is the one provision on which there has been a complete U-turn within a matter of months. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can perhaps respond before the end of the debate. Like this lowest and most community-based tier of local government, my hon. Friends and I will strongly oppose the extension of the provision. The Government should be embarrassed to be making this proposal.

Mr. Chope: First, let me deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). We are referring to community councils in Wales. If we were not doing so, the hon. Gentleman would have a point because the community councils in England would certainly not come within the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will see that the amendment applies not to Scotland, but only to England and Wales.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Where does it say that? The amendment states:
Page 2, line 21 (Clause 1), at end insert 'a parish council, a community council'.
It does not say Wales, Scotland or England.

Mr. Chope: If the hon. Gentleman looks at clause 1, and particularly at lines 19 and 20 on page 2 of the Bill, he will see that it states:
In the application of this Part to England and Wales, `local authority' in subsection (1) above means—".
The amendment relates to subsection (1) in clause 1. I hope that I have been able to allay the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), it is true that the Government have taken a different opinion following information about the extent to which some parishes are spending on services that are subject to the competitive tendering provisions in the Bill. Many councils have expenditure in excess of £100,000. For example, Swanage had expenditure last year of £657,000. That is a large sum of money. Similarly, Stratford had expenditure in excess of £500,000. Several other authorities have many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of expenditure. We believe that it is reasonable and logical that the same provisions should apply to those councils as to other district councils.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Why on earth, then, did the Minister and the Government say explicitly twice this year that they would not apply what they are now going to apply? Did the Government not know what parish and community councils did when they went to consultation and when the Minister wrote to the officer at the National Association of Local Councils? Did the Government have no idea at all about that?

Mr. Chope: As the letter of 10 December to which the hon. Gentleman referred makes clear, the Government were not aware of the extent to which individual parish councils are spending quite considerable sums of money on activities covered by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for not having that information. However, once we received the information, we reached what I hope hon. Members will believe is the logical conclusion—that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to apply to parish councils with larger amounts of expenditure.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about extending the provisions of the Bill, I must state that village halls, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, do not come within the list of facilities that we have proposed should be covered if we add sport and leisure management to the provisions in the Bill. The proposed exemption of £100,000 has been put forward in a consultation paper on implementation. We did not say that we would amend the Bill generally. However, we said that we would consult about implementation and that is what we are doing now. We are still considering how we should propose implementation for parish councils.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister neglected to deal with one point. Why was the matter subject to one week's consultation?

Mr. Chope: I am not sure of the exact length of time for consultation. My department wrote to the National Association of Local Councils on 6 November and it replied in a letter dated 9 December. The time span is considerably longer than one week. If the National Association of Local Councils had not replied within one week and the Government had said that it was too late and they would not allow any reply to be taken into account, that would have been unreasonable. We waited for more than four weeks for a reply. Having received the letter we considered the arguments in it. Of course, it was not the first time that we had heard those arguments because a number of individual parish councils had responded to our letter of 6 November.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that reply and at least that is now on the record. The Minister did not say that any council was in favour of the proposal so we are entitled to presume that no local authority responded by saying that it supported the Government's proposal. That would still have been the case had the consultation period been longer or shorter.
In June this year, when a smaller percentage of the population than ever before voted for the Conservatives, the Government moved rapidly to the Right. They moved rapidly away from supporting local government. They moved to a position where they will be able to interfere more in local government at a lower level. To repeat a metaphor that was used earlier, the Government found themselves "grasping entrails further down". The amendment is evidence of that.
6.45 pm
It is a sad day when the Government have to get their maulers on local parish and community government and insist that it must have the morality of Ministers in the Department of the Environment and in 10 Downing street. The local parish and community councils have done a good and well respected job. They resist and oppose the Government's proposal. If the Government insist on arguing for the amendment, I hope that the clause will be rejected in another place.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 200.

Division No. 115]
[6.45 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Allason, Rupert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Amos, Alan
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Atkins, Robert
Durant, Tony


Atkinson, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Farr, Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forth, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George


Bos well, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Chris
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayward, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chope, Christopher
Heddle, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James


Colvin, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Critchley, Julian
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)





Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Janman, Timothy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rost, Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rowe, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Latham, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speller, Tony


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maples, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marland, Paul
Summerson, Hugo


Marlow, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maude, Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Miller, Hal
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moss, Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mudd, David
Walden, George


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilshire, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wolfson, Mark


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)
Woodcock, Mike


Price, Sir David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Raffan, Keith



Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Redwood, John
Mr. Alan Howarth.






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Harman, Ms Harriet


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Haynes, Frank


Allen, Graham
Heffer, Eric S,


Alton, David
Henderson, Douglas


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Hinchliffe, David


Ashdown, Paddy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Home Robertson, John


Ashton, Joe
Howarth, George (Knowsley)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Battle, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Beckett, Margaret
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Illsley, Eric


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ingram, Adam


Bermingham, Gerald
John, Brynmor


Blair, Tony
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Boateng, Paul
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lambie, David


Buchan, Norman
Lamond, James


Buckley, George
Leighton, Ron


Caborn, Richard
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Callaghan, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Litherland, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livsey, Richard


Clay, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Cohen, Harry
McAllion, John


Coleman, Donald
McAvoy, Tom


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McCartney, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Macdonald, Calum


Corbyn, Jeremy
McFall, John


Cousins, Jim
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cox, Tom
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McTaggart, Bob


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tarn
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Darling, Alastair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Doran, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eastham, Ken
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Fearn, Ronald
Morley, Elliott


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Flannery, Martin
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
O'Brien, William


Galbraith, Samuel
O'Neill, Martin


Galloway, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, John


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Ms Jo





Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rogers, Allan
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Rooker, Jeff
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis


Rowlands, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wall, Pat


Sedgemore, Brian
Wallace, James


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Short, Clare
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Alan W. (Csrm'then)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wilson, Brian


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Steinberg, Gerald
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Frank Cook and


Straw, Jack
Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 26, leave out `islands'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 26, at end insert—
'(7A) Work which would (apart from this subsection) fall within a defined activity shall not do so if it is carried out on or in connection with the carrying out of a defined activity on an island in relation to which the number of persons for the time being registered as being entitled to vote at a local government election by virtue of being resident therein shall be less than 1000.'.
No. 6, in clause 6, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
'(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a local authority may carry out functional work which falls within a defined activity without the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above having been fulfilled if it appears to him that the functional work will only be carried out on or in connection with the carrying out of a defined activity on an island situated within an islands area in Scotland.'.

Mr. Home Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) is acutely concerned about the impact that the legislation is likely to have on the services provided by his local authority for his constituents. No doubt he will be seeking to catch your eye presently, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill will require local authorities to go through an elaborate set of procedures, designed by the Government to enable private contractors to muscle in on local authority services. It will be a wasteful and harmful exercise in many respects, but it will be downright absurd in its application to remote rural areas, particularly Scotland's three island areas. The islands councils will be required to advertise contracts, invite contractors to submit tenders and maintain a whole range of detailed records of those procedures. For a range of services on the islands it would be a waste of time. There is not the remotest likelihood of more than one contractor offering to do the work, and in many cases no contractor will tender, so the islands council will be compelled to go through procedures laid down in the Bill before continuing to provide the services that it has in the past.
7 pm
It might be helpful to give the House one or two illustrations of the sheer idiocy of the Government's


proposals for these areas. For example, the Scottish Office proposes to require the Shetland islands council to put its school and welfare catering out to competitive tender by October 1989. That will include the provision of 10 meals a day on the island of Fair Isle, nine on Fetlar, seven on Foula and four on the island of Papa Stour. Does anyone seriously think that a catering contractor will parachute four hot dinners a day on to the island of Papa Stour?

Mr. James Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as Papa Stour does not have a proper landing strip, those meals will have to be parachuted in and that in adverse weather conditions that may be impossible?

Mr. Home Robertson: I am worried about the hon. Gentleman's constituents on Papa Stour because they could go hungry for days on end as a consequence of this legislation.
The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has an interest in refuse collection. Will Pritchards want to take over the islands' five refuse vehicles that operate in the massive area between Sumburgh Head in the south and the north of Unst in the north? I am glad to see the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield in his place. Will he want to take over the tractors and trailers that serve as refuse collection vehicles on the islands of Bressay, Foula, Fair Isle, the Skerries and Papa Stour?
The Orkney islands council will apparently have to put its refuse collection service out to competitive tender by April 1989. Interestingly, it has developed a refuse disposal service on some of its smaller islands in partnership with private contractors, without being compelled to do so by this silly legislation. That is how the service has been extended to the 74 households on Eday, 28 households on Flotta, 52 on North Ronaldsay and 39 on Papa Westray.
Does anyone seriously believe that Pritchards or any other contractor will bid to bring their refuse collection vehicles over from the mainland on ferries to those small islands and communities? I rather doubt that it will.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: As I understand it, Orkney council has private refuse collection on the island of Westray while Skye and Lochalsh district council has contracted out its refuse collection on the island of Raasay and street cleaning at Glenelg. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some small places in Scotland are contracting out services?

Mr. Home Robertson: Not only am I aware of that—I mentioned it a moment ago. It is absurd that small contractors operating in those areas are to be confronted with competitive tendering. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that anyone on those small islands will tender for those operations? This legislation does not make sense for the areas that we are considering.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the natives of Glenelg will be fascinated to hear that its street cleaning arrangements have been the subject of earnest debate in the great mother of Parliaments? Does he agree that, since time immemorial, local authorities have made common-sense arrangements, whether with the public or private sector, and operated in a non-doctrinaire way? The idiocy of this legislation is that it will introduce a doctrinaire factor, and

non-political councils in places such as Glenelg or Raasay will be forced to make arrangements that are unsuitable for their needs.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend has considerable experience in communicating with people in those areas. If we are talking about the same Glenelg, I suspect that it may come as a surprise to its residents that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) thinks that Glenelg is an island. —[Interruption.] It is always a pleasure to have the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) present during these debates.
I move now to the experiences of the Western Isles islands council following the 1982 legislation on competitive tendering for road maintenance and gritting. I understand that on the island of Barra no contractor was willing to undertake this work. However reliable the Caledonian-MacBrayne ferries may be, I suspect that the people of Barra would not have been too happy about having to wait for a road gritter to come from Oban to clear the ice, so the council still provides that service.

Mr. Patnick: Private contractors, farmers and similar people in places such as Sheffield, which the hon. Gentleman disparaged, contract out to the council for snow clearing and other services. When we discussed this matter in Committee, I gained the impression that Labour Members were saying that no services in Scotland could be privatised and that firms would not compete. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who joined the Committee and then left it, said that these proposals were rubbish and typical of the Conservative party and that people in Scotland were not interested, yet my research has revealed that some small services in Scotland are contracted out.

Mr. Home Robertson: I do not know how many times I must say this to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman. He served on the Committee and listened to these points being made over and over again. It has been traditional in remote rural areas of Scotland to operate services on a pragmatic basis. Where there are private contractors who can do the job well, they are doing so, and where it is necessary for local authorities to do the job they are doing so. It is absurd to require local authorities to go through the rigmarole of contracting out and advertising when it will not add to the sum total of human knowledge or provision of services.
The Montgomery committee, which the Government appointed to report on the government of the island areas of Scotland, specifically recommended that legislation should be subject to variation to take account of the special circumstances of island areas. This legislation is obviously not appropriate to the island areas, so why have the Government not paid any heed to the committee's recommendations?
There is an interesting precedent. In 1984 the Western Isles health board was exempted from a requirement to tender for domestic and catering services because it was considered unrealistic to do so.
The procedures in this part of the Bill represent a pointless and wasteful bureaucratic imposition on remote local authorities areas. Amendment No. 3 would exempt islands councils altogether; amendment No. 5 would exempt services on all islands with a population of less than 1,000 — I understand that that would cover a number of islands in the Strathclyde and Highland region,


in addition to the Western Isles, the Orkney islands and the Shetland islands — and amendment No. 6 would allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain services on certain islands in the islands councils areas. I must confess that I do not have confidence in that degree of rationality on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The three amendments make broadly the same point to avoid the most absurd implications of this irrelevant legislation in the island areas of Scotland. I hope that the Minister will at least undertake to give this matter further consideration before the Bill is dealt with in the House of Lords. I hope also that we shall have some sensible legislation for our rural and island areas.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has forcefully illustrated the nonsense that could result if the Bill were enacted in its present form and applied without exemption to the islands areas of Scotland. As he stated, my amendments are somewhat different, but aim to tackle the same situation. Amendment No. 5 tackles the definition of defined activities and would take out of part I activities that are carried out in islands that have fewer than 1,000 local government electors. That is narrower in detail than the hon. Gentleman's amendment, although wider in that it would cover islands in Strathclyde, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and in the Highland region. However, my amendment would not include the mainlands of Orkney and Shetland.
I have no doubt that when the Minister replies—it is always useful to try to anticipate his reply—he will refer to the de minimis provisions. As I understand it, £100,000 is to be proposed as the gross sum. One assumes that that will be the gross sum for, for example, the provision of school meals throughout particular local authority areas. Therefore, it would not make allowances for the individual islands that must be served. As the hon. Member for East Lothian pointed out, in the case of the Shetland islands council, a small number of school meals have to be provided for each of a large number of islands. Therefore, it does not make sense to have competitive tender provisions as are now envisaged. The hon. Gentleman thought that the provision of four school meals on Papa Stour was perhaps a record. He overlooked the two pupils in the school of Graemsay on Orkney, which would also have to come under the provisions.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has missed out the island of Papa Stronsay, which, if I remember rightly, has one person. The main vehicle back and forth in my day used to be the Government boat.

Mr. Wallace: I know of the hon. Gentleman's native knowledge of my constituency. There is not a school on Papa Stronsay, but I confirm that if it has a population of one it will fall within the definition of amendment No. 5.
Obviously, we are dealing with services that are widely dispersed but delivered in small volume. In Shetland, although the cost of building cleaning for education and social work is not insignificant, being £450,000 and £250,000 respectively, the cost of the remainder, which is spread over 22 locations, amounts to only £89,500. If the Government do not accept any of the amendments that have been tabled, or any that may be put forward in another place, we will be asked to build up an enormous

administration, which would place an enormous burden on the local authorities which prepare the detailed specifications. Inevitably, that administration will be more expensive in island and rural areas, as we must also consider the costs of transport and supervision.
We are being asked to do something which runs counter to what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill, which is more efficient local administration. If we are to achieve that, some exceptions must be made. Again I am trying to anticipate arguments, but it could be argued that there should be one detailed specification, which could cover all the work in one islands council area. If that were proposed by the islands councils, I imagine that it would not be long before some contractor or potential tenderer suggested that the councils were making it more difficult for a contractor to put in a tender. Clause 7, after all, refers to
the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition.
Amendment No. 6, which relates to clause 6, is of fundamental importance. In some respects it could be argued that it duplicates clause 2(8), which gives a general exempting power to the Secretary of State. Together with the islands councils, to which the hon. Member for East Lothian referred, I am anxious that there should be such a clause because of the recommendations of the committee that sat under the chairmanship of Sir David Montgomery. Although I am sure that the Minister will have heard the recommendations before, I repeat that the committee reported:
We conclude that there may be circumstances in which Acts of Parliament should include a provision to allow the Secretary of State to vary their application to the island areas, and we recommend that such provisions should in future be considered in relation to all Scottish legislation at an early stage in its preparation.
7.15 pm
The Committee reported in April 1984. We waited a long time for the reply of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), but in response to that recommendation he stated:
I accept recommendation 4, and will consider for future legislation whether it would be appropriate to ask Parliament to approve a power to vary the application of particular provisions in specified areas.
We are asking that the present Secretary of State practise what his predecessor preached.
There is a case for treating the island areas differently because of the cost and administrative burden and the possible expansion of the labour force. If a council is, within its administration, to encompass the client as well as the provider of services, the islands authorities feel strongly that an unreasonable burden will be placed on them. When the Minister replies, I shall be grateful if he will advise the House on what consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Montgomery report.
The power would be permissive. Under my amendment, the islands councils would have to justify the case for each island and each activity. As has already been stated, refuse collection on the six Orkney islands of E day, North Ronaldsay, Papa Westray, Stronsay, Westray and Flotta is already performed privately. In those cases, the local authority maintains that it has used good, sound common sense. The authority has considered each island, its circumstances and the activity or function to be performed and has used common sense. Where it has been appropriate and sensible to use a private operator, it has


done so. Where it is far more sensible for the local authority to carry out the function, it has done so. There have not been any ideological barriers to introducing private contractors if that has made sense.
If the Government do not make any concessions, they will be saying that we should create a huge bureaucracy to achieve what common sense could achieve far more practically. I hope that the Minister will make a constructive response and be prepared to move an amendment, possibly in another place, or at least meet representatives of the island authorities to discuss such matters before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: As the House is to consider many amendments tonight, I shall try to make my remarks as brief as possible. In this amendment opposition Members do not oppose the general principle of the Bill which, as we understand it, aims to force local authorities to put out to tender various defined activities so that the result is a more cost-effective provision of those activities. However, in amendment No. 3 we seek to raise the question whether that principle can sensibly be applied to an area such as that covered by the islands authorities in Scotland.
I draw the Government's attention to the fact that the Audit Commission's occasional paper No. 3, published in February 1987, and entitled "Competitiveness and the Contracting out of Local Authorities' Services", stated:
the assessment of long-run competitiveness will need to be faced on the facts of the local situation rather than on generalized assertions about the relative advantages of the private sector and direct labour".
In other words, the Audit Commission emphasised the importance of the local situation in assessing the value of the general principle that the Bill seeks to promote. The importance of the local situation is nowhere more apparent than in the case of the islands authorities.
The Montgomery report, which has already been mentioned, emphasised the need for a special and specific islands council perspective in local authority matters. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that that point seemed to be implicitly recognised by the Government in 1984 when they specifically excepted the islands authorities from the provisions of the National Health Service circular in 1983 which required domestic and catering services in the NHS to be put out to tender. That seemed to be an implicit recognition of the unique situation of the islands authorities and of the fact that that principle is not applicable to them.
The islands authorities are unique because they provide a complete range of local government services for a relatively small population over a relatively large geographical area. My constituency corresponds to the boundaries of the islands' authority for the Western Isles. It has a population of over 30,000 and an area of some 300,000 hectares. To provide the complete range of services for a small population over such a large geographical area, local authorities have developed a unique structure which, above all, emphasises the virtues of integration and flexibility.
Many of the defined activities contained in the Bill are indistinguishable from other local authority activities. For example, the department of environmental health and consumer protection deals with an entire range of

cleansing services — not only the defined activities contained in the Bill, but items such as derelict vehicle disposal, waste disposal, looking after the abattoir at Stornoway, public conveniences, and so on. In doing that, it eliminates lines of demarcation within the department, allowing those various activities to share management supervision, personnel, and even, in some cases, plant and office space. By doing that, it achieves efficiency and low costs across the board. Despite the immense geographical difficulties in providing a service such as cleansing in an area such as the Western Isles, the cost of cleansing per head is one of the lowest in the country; that testifies to the success of the local authority's methods in providing those services.
What will happen if, as a result of the Bill, artificial divisions are introduced between defined and non-defined activities? As has been pointed out, there will be a loss of administrative efficiency and the introduction of artificial lines of demarcation. If the council, as a result of tendering, lost control over some defined activities, the remaining activities would be less cost-effective because of the fixed costs of plant, buildings, manpower and so on. Costs presently shared between all those activities would then be shared between fewer activities, so that costs per unit of work would increase.
On the other hand, if the council were successful in the tendering process and the defined activities remained in-house, there would be an even more ridiculous situation. Within the present tightly integrated streamlined structure, internal trading organisations would be set up, with vertical splits and demarcations being created, not only between the defined and other activities, but within the defined activities. The staff involved in the preparation, submission and operation of tenders would have to be separated from the staff in charge of the specification and the appraisal and supervision of contracts. That would lead to a grave loss in efficiency.
A further loss would be the virtue of flexibility, which presently pertains to the way in which the islands council operates in tackling the specific problems of the area. One problem is not moving workers around from job to job, but rather moving them around a large geographical area. That has been tackled by having great flexibility within the work force so that when problems arise workers can be easily shifted around to tackle them. Such flexibility is of the essence in providing good services in a small, multipurpose authority.
When those services are in-house, such flexibility is easy because staff who are directly under one command can respond immediately to new instructions to meet new problems and can be redirected. That ease of solving problems would fall by the wayside if the defined activities were contracted out and there would be a much less flexible system. Even small unexpected problems would cause communications problems and larger problems might mean that contracts would have to be renegotiated.
That highly prized virtue of flexibility within the councils will be lost. For example, the Western Isles council prizes the fact that its repair and maintenance section has sufficient flexibility to respond immediately, particularly in emergencies, and need maintain only a minimum physical fleet. The loss of that flexibility will mean the inevitable increase of its fleet, which, in turn, will lead to higher costs for the local authority.
Further costs will accrue because, given the present streamlined nature of the islands authorities, drawing up


detailed specifications for the proposed defined activities which are to be contracted out will involve the employment of new personnel. They will either have to be hired or perhaps even contracted out. They will give rise to the absurd situation whereby the drawing up of contracts will have to be contracted out simply because the authority runs such an efficient and streamlined ship at present. The supervision of contracts will almost inevitably require more personnel, which will also be inefficient.
Because of the peculiar circumstances of the islands, the council employs some specialised equipment — a point not mentioned so far — which has been obtained at considerable cost and is intended to suit the particular needs of the islands. One humble example is the rubbish bins in the Western Isles. So many of the households are set so far back from the main road that it would be inefficient for the local authority to take its rubbish trucks up every small private road. Special bins are provided at considerable expense to every householder on the island. They are equipped with wheels so that householders can wheel them down to the main road, thus providing a more efficient collection of rubbish. The system has been highly successful. Other examples of such specialised equipment abound.
What will happen to such specialised equipment as part of the tendering process? If the council has to dispose of such equipment, it will be a grave financial loss to the ratepayers who have sunk capital into the purchase of that equipment. If it is retained, but ends up being under-utilised because of the tendering process, it will again be a grave loss.
The final absurdity of imposing the provisions of the Bill on the islands authorities is that it is all likely to be for naught. It is likely to be a mere academic exercise because there are grave doubts about whether suppliers exist within such a confined market to provide the kind of services that are provided by the council.
After all the administrative work that has gone into the contracting-out process and the costs involved, there will be no change in the provision of services. It will end up being a gigantic waste of money. The islands authorities are in many ways model authorities, even according to the Government's own lights. They are non-political authorities. They have followed Government guidelines year after year. They are cost-efficient and have flexible and integrated work practices. The Bill will impose financial and administrative burdens, without any corresponding rewards, upon the authorities. It will increase their overheads and unit costs and will impair the efficient use of their manpower and physical resources. It will destroy the virtues of flexibility and integration that are so crucial in the islands context and will diminish their ability to deliver quality services.
I beg the Government, therefore, to listen to the arguments made by the Opposition, to change the Bill before it reaches another place, to follow the precedent set by the Scottish Home and Health Department in 1983, to stop the present nonsense and to exempt the islands authorities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The hon. Members for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) have argued ably on behalf of their constituents. I wish to speak to three of the

amendments, which seek varying degrees of exemption from the competitive process in respect of the islands and Scottish island authorities.
I am convinced of the need to include all local authorities in the scope of the Bill, including the Scottish islands authorities. The only good reason for any exemption is when the cost of compliance with the competition requirements outweighs the possible benefits from the competitive process. That is, however, the purpose of the de minimis level, which the Scottish consultation paper suggested should be set at £100,000 of expenditure a year on any given service. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned one service which, if I heard him correctly, has been worth £89,500. That would be excluded under the terms of the consultation document.

Mr. Wallace: I think that the Minister misunderstood me. That figure was for building cleaning. If one excludes educational and social services buildings, the rest, which was spread over 22 locations, was worth £89,500. However, the global sum is far in excess of £100,000,

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the cost of compliance with competition outweighs the benefits of the competitive process, that will be taken into account. The representations made by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents and those sent in by the islands council will be considered carefully with all the other responses, which are due by 31 January. It is reasonable to stipulate that any service involving expenditure above a given exemption level should be exposed to the competitive process, wherever that service is provided.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Minister have any estimate of the costs or the manpower burdens to be placed on the islands councils as a consequence of the Bill? Does he accept the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that this would add extra burdens to the islands councils?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is why we put out a consultation document, and we shall weigh with the utmost care every representation sent in. They must be in by 31 January, so there is plenty of time. The facts speak for themselves and they will be considered with great care.
There is no need for competition to be confined to urban areas and examples can be found in remote parts of the country. Orkney islands council, for example, uses private contractors in the provision of a refuse collection service for its distant islands. The Government are fully aware of the special circumstances in which the islands councils operate, but private enterprise in the islands has to operate in the same circumstances and there is really no case for exemption for the islands authorities alone, on the grounds that it is more difficult or expensive to provide services in remote and isolated areas.

Mr. Wallace: Are the refuse services in Orkney run by private contractors as a result of competitive tendering? The director of administration and legal services said in a recent letter to me:
the council considers all the factors relating to each Island before choosing the best solution for each Island so that the most efficient service is provided to the ratepayers at the most economical cost.
Was there competitive tendering in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?

Lord Douglas James-Hamilton: The direct labour organisation was not considered for refuse collection in the Orkneys. In almost all cases, the exception has been those islands with tiny populations; for example, in North Ronaldsay, which has 14 households, where there were more than two tenderers in the private sector. In each case the private contractor was a local licensed haulage contractor.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles made a point relating to mainland Orkney rather than to the distant islands. After the reorganisation of local government, the new islands council put its refuse collection out to tender. It advertised nationwide, but there were no suitable applicants and the contract was awarded to the DLO. What the hon. Gentleman said about the matter being academic may turn out to be right, but I give him an assurance that the representations sent in by the islands council will be considered with great care.
It is the Government's firm view that the opening up of services to competition can bring substantial savings and improvements in the standard of service, but the Government's policy is not enforced privatisation. The legislation will impose fair competition between local authorities' own work forces and the private sector. If an authority, including any of the three island authorities, can provide the best and cheapest service, it should continue to do so, but if the private sector can offer a better deal for the ratepayers and the consumers of the service, the local authorities should choose that option. The crux of the matter — whether the private sector can compete—can be established only by testing the market. Without that test, authorities cannot be sure that their present operation is the best available.
With regard to amendment No. 5, it does not matter how small the population of any one island is. The purpose of the Bill is to subject those local authority activities defined in the Bill to the competitive process. The proposal is, as I have said, that there is only a case for exemption in respect of any de minimis provision applied to the whole of any local authority's activity. There is no case in support of selective exemption within the authority for specific groups or islands.
With regard to amendment No. 6, nor is there any need for a power which would enable the Secretary of State to choose not to apply the competitive process to any particular island. This is the point about the Montgomery report. The Secretary of State already has the power under clauses 6(3) and 15(6) to make regulations applying competition to such authorities and with such exceptions as he may determine, and that is quite sufficient. The existence of the power does not mean that competition will not extend to the Scottish islands other than any exemption that they may gain by way of a de minimis provision. I assure Opposition Members that the representations from their constituency councils will be carefully considered.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has read that brief before. I do not think that he believed it then, and I do not think that he believes it now. Frankly, it is a load of rubbish. It is absurd to suggest that any useful purpose can be served by going through the competitive tendering exercise for running a tractor and trailer on the island of Papa Stour to clear the refuse from households in that area or to provide the four school meals that are provided every day on the island. I do not think that the Minister believes

that nonsense. We recognise that he must go through the exercise to remain part of the ludicrous Government. This proposal is one of the sillier manifestations of the Conservative party's policy.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Home Robertson: I shall not give way.
We are not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. I should like to hope that the Government will heed the representations that have been made to them by the Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles councils. I have no doubt that the islands councils will clearly explain how irrelevant this proposal is. I cannot say that we have much cause for confidence in the minority administration in the Scottish Office.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

DEFINED ACTIVITIES

Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 8, at end insert—
`( ) Before making an order under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate.'.
Hon. Members will recall that in Committee my hon. Friend undertook to consider whether to bring forward an amendment to put it beyond doubt that the exercise of the power contained in clause 2(3) should be subject to consultation. It was said then that this was already the standard practice of the Department on these matters. Indeed, we have just come to the end of the consultation period on the addition of sport and leisure management, and we are in the process of consulting on phasing in and de minimis levels, and there will be other consultation exercises in connection with this Bill alone—all on a voluntary rather than a statutory basis.
We have no desire to inflict upon local authorities totally unworkable legislation. We depend upon consultation responses to ensure that our competition proposals are viable in practice. That is the only way in which competition will be really effective and its benefits may be reaped by all.
The amendment will require the Secretary of State to consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate before extending competition to other activities in the future. I believe that the amendment should reassure Opposition Members that we shall continue to ask for local government views on the issues that affect them in this part of the Bill, while giving the Secretary of State the flexibility to tailor consultation to the needs of the particular activities under scrutiny at the time.

Mr. Wallace: I make a brief contribution to state that the concession is indeed welcome. We have talked to closed minds for most of the evening, but, for once, a mind has been open.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

THE CONDITIONS

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 39, after 'work', insert 'free of charge'.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the detailed specifications which councils will need to prepare in order to go out to tender may be inspected free of charge. In Standing Committee, hon. Members agreed that inspection of the annual reports required by this Bill should be free of charge, and this amendment merely ensures consistency of approach to the other inspection right in this part of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

THE CONDITIONS: FURTHER PROVISIONS

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 37, at end insert
'(5) If the Secretary of State so provides by regulations, the fifth condition shall not be treated as fulfilled unless—

(a) in accordance with prescribed requirements there is prepared and certified a document which appraises and fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed with respect to responses falling within subsection (2) above and the bid referred to in subsection (3) above; and
(b) at such time or times (prior to reaching the decision referred to in section 7(7) above) as may be prescribed, copies of that document are provided or made available in accordance with any prescribed requirements;

and "prescribed" here means prescribed by the regulations.
(6) Where any document is provided or made available in accordance with the requirements of regulations under subsection (5) above, the publication thereby of any defamatory matter in the document shall be privileged unless the publication is proved to be made with malice.'.
Part I of the Bill is about competition, and, in order for competition to have the desired effect of creating genuine pressure for better value for money, it naturally contains provisions to ensure that competition will be open and fair. Apart from the general duty in clause 7 not to act in an anti-competitive manner, it contains certain specific duties, such as to meet financial objectives and to publish accounts showing whether they have been met, and powers to add further relevant duties, such as those in clause 8 dealing with the handling of tenders.
This amendment is tabled in response to representations which have been made by various interested parties—and with which I wholeheartedly agree—to the effect that one of the most useful of all possible ways of ensuring fairness of competition is to enable all those concerned to see the tender appraisal on the basis of which councils are likely to take a decision to award work in house. The reference to a certified document reflects our belief that any such appraisal should be certified as fair by an appropriate officer.
7.45 pm
We have thought it right to introduce this notion also via an enabling power rather than as a set of duties spelt out on the face of the Bill. Essentially, that is because we realise that imposition of such a duty may be less straightforward than it seems. The last element of the amendment already recognises, and deals with, the possibility of the duty leading to the publication of material which might otherwise be construable as defamatory. Other issues could arise, and we therefore wish to approach the use of this power via consultation on a fully worked-up set of detailed proposals.
Although I cannot anticipate what they will be, I can point out to the House that at least one authority—the

London borough of Wandsworth—already publishes its tender appraisals for service contracts because it sees them as simply one important element of open and accountable government, whether or not there is an in-house tender for the work. I understand that this practice has not given rise to any problems at all—the very opposite, indeed, since people can now read for themselves the basis on which these important decisions are made.
I hope, therefore, and fully expect, that it will be possible to work up an entirely acceptable scheme on the basis of this power, and commend it to the House accordingly.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he explained the amendment. It stopped my asking him a series of questions. I press him about the content of the proposed subsection (6). If the appraisal document simply tells the truth in respect of what is thought about a company's actions, I presume that it will not be defamatory. It is probably a legalistic point, but will the Minister enlighten us on it? I am not looking for problems. People want to know whether they can put the truth in appraisal documents without being defamatory. Therefore, they would not need the protection of privilege. We are not looking for barriers.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

LOCAL AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONTRACTS: EXCLUSION OF NON-COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 16, line 46, leave out `18(10)' and insert `(Race relations matters)'. — [Mr. Howard.]

Clause 18

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO OR CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 17

Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 17, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) An order under subsection (1) above may include such consequential and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to he necessary or expedient.'.
The ingenuity of some local authorities in dreaming up ways in which they might circumvent the provisions in part II of the Bill was discussed many times in Committee. As we pointed out, we have tried to cover all the practices that authorities currently adopt to discriminate against certain contractors or to protect their DLOs, but it would be unwise to assume that the provisions cater for all possible abuses of the contractual process which authorities may hit upon in the future.
Clearly, therefore it must be sensible to avoid the need for further legislation every time an authority comes up with a new way to avoid the provisions, and clause 18(1) allows the Secretary of State, by order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to add to the noncommercial matters in clause 17(5). However, as at present drafted, the Bill does not allow the Secretary of State to make consequential or transitional provisions in any order under clause 18(1). For example, there is at present no power to require authorities to redraw select lists that have been drawn up by taking account of a matter which is


rendered non-commercial by an order under clause 18(1), and the purpose of the amendment is to correct that omission. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Rooker: If ever there were a justification for voting against giving the Bill a Third Reading, it is embodied in the amendment. The Minister has told us all. The Government are trying to run every itemised detail of local government. Frankly, it does not matter how clever the whizz kids in Marsham street are, they will not defeat the 400 legitimate local authorities that are trying to serve their residents. The amendment is unnecessary, but, given the need to make progress, we do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. Howard: It is not the intention of the Government to defeat any legitimate local authority. Where local authorities are prepared to act in such a way as to circumvent the provisions of the legislation these powers are necessary and will be used.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 17, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 18.

No. 20, in page 18, line 12, leave out 'subsection (10)' and insert 'section (Race relations matters)'.

No. 22, in page 18, line 16, leave out 'subsection (10)' and insert 'section (Race relations matters)'. — [Mr. Howard.]

Clause 20

TRANSITIONAL DUTY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS EXISTING LISTS

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 19, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'section' and insert
'authority's action was reasonably necessary to secure compliance with'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 27

PROHIBITION ON PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALITY BY TEACHING OR BY PUBLISHING MATERIAL

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 27, line 27, after 'authority', insert
'may undertake Sex Education in the course of which an awareness of different sexual orientations may be taught but the local authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 33, in page 27, line 30, leave out subsection (b).
No. 34, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'either of the purposes' and insert 'the purpose'.
No. 35, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'paragraphs' and insert 'paragraph'.
No. 36, in page 27, line 36, leave out 'and (b)'.
No. 47, page 27, line 38, leave out 'treating or preventing the spread of disease' and insert
'care counselling and health education on AIDS and other diseases'.
No. 37, in page 27, line 39, at end insert:—
'(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against any homosexual person, or designed to protect the civil rights of any such person.'.
No. 38, in page 27, line 39, at end insert
`(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of providing

information, counselling or advice to any pupil at a school or other educational establishment maintained by the authority as to his personal or social development or any family relationship which can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect that development.'.
No. 48, page 28, line 3, at end insert: —
'(1A) Nothing in this section shall permit or encourage discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation'.

Mr. Hughes: If I understand correctly, the Government do not intend to agree to amendment No. 32. Therefore, we shall force a Division so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to vote for the inclusion of the words in the amendment.
At this stage I shall set out our views on the other amendments which are being considered. Amendment No. 33 is substantive and amendments Nos. 34 to 36 are consequential. My hon. Friends and I support amendments Nos. 47 and 48 in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and amendments Nos. 37 and 38 which have been tabled by the official Opposition. If there are Divisions on any of those amendments, we shall support the amendments. So that hon. Members are clear, the amendment that I have moved and those that follow from it are supported by all my colleagues in the parliamentary Liberal party.
Clause 27 is a late arrival in the Bill. It came by way of a new clause tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) which was supported by other Conservative Back-Bench Members. It was accepted, with an amendment, by the Minister for Local Government. Therefore, it comes before the House for the first time as part of the Bill.
The history of the proposal is slightly longer. The derivation of the new clause was the Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill which was introduced into the other place by the noble Lord the Earl of Halsbury. It also appeared as a private Member's Bill in this House. It is interesting to recollect the view of the Government on the proposal then—which, as I think the Minister for Local Government will concede, is substantively, if not exactly, the same as clause 27.
Lord Skelmersdale gave the Government's view in response to the Earl of Halsbury's speech on Second Reading. The Bill changed the law on two matters, the second of which was the matter that concerns us now. Lord Skelmersdale said:
Turning now to the second part of the prohibition we are all agreed that the most dangerous and pernicious effects of loosening sexual values are on children. Schools must approach the difficult task of teaching their pupils about sexual matters in a responsible and sensitive manner. We must ensure that children are not subject to insidious propaganda for homosexuality. Moreover, the physical and emotional dangers of promiscuity should be spelt out. Regrettably there have been instances—we have heard some referred to in this debate—of the use of unsound teaching methods and materials and the propagation of extreme and unrepresentative views of sexual ethics and mores in the main related to the presentation of homosexuality. The Bill seeks to make this illegal by prohibiting financial or other assistance being made available by local authorities for this purpose. Moreover, it refers to a very subjective word—namely, 'acceptability', a word which could occupy your Lorships, sitting in your judicial capacity, for hour after hour.
In Committee the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and I raised exactly this point with the Minister. The definition in the second provision of the Bill has no qualification and has in it several words which are not defined in the Bill. It was the view of the Government as recently as less than a year ago, on 18 December last


year, in the other place that the word "acceptability", which we debated in Committee only last week, was capable of substantial debate and was very unfair.
In another place Lord Skelmersdale went on to make two points which we raised in Committee. First, he said that the amendment that the Earl of Halsbury's original Bill would have introduced was better dealt with in the context of education legislation. He made the point that the Government had just legislated in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to provide that sex education be taught in schools and that the arrangements for the curriculum should include the views of parents and governors. Again I quote Lord Skelmersdale:
Under the new arrangements, all those responsible for the provision of sex education in county, voluntary and maintained schools will be required by law to ensure that any teaching offered is set within a clear moral context and is supportive of family life.
He said later:
What all this means is that the Bill of the noble Earl seeks to prevent local education authorities from encouraging the promotion of homosexuality in schools at the very time that those same authorities are about to cease to have a direct role in determining the kind of sex education to be offered in schools.
He therefore made the second point which was that not only is the word "acceptability" laden with possible interpretations but that the Bill was seeking unnecessarily to legislate in the education context. I do not quote all the points that the Minister made against the Bill, but he said:
Finally, on that aspect of the Bill, I should express reservations about how the wording of the Bill— with its prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship — might be interpreted in practice. The House will want to investigate, again in Committee, whether the meaning is clear or whether there is a risk that any teaching about homosexuality will effectively be outlawed. The Government's policy is that schools should be prepared to address the issue of homosexuality, provided they approach it in a balanced and factual manner, appropriate to the maturity of the pupils concerned. The issue cannot he ignored by schools when it is widely discussed in society and when pupils may well ask questions about it …
The Government have made it quite clear that any teaching about homosexuality must never, in any sense, advocate or encourage it as a normal form of relationship. To do so would be educationally and morally indefensible. I appreciate that the noble Earl's Bill seeks to prevent only such abuses. I fear, however, that the distinction between these, and what I have described as proper teaching about homosexuality, cannot be drawn sufficiently clearly in legislation to avoid harmful misinterpretation. That is a risk we cannot take.
That is what a Minister from the Department of the Environment said on 18 December 1986.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

8 pm

Mr. Hughes: In a moment.
in the Government's view, the Bill is unnecessary".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1986, Vol. 483, c. 334–6.]
He went on to say that it was not a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Michael Brown: I sought to intervene because I wanted to ensure that the hon. Gentleman quoted the last sentence, and he has just done so.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me earlier that that express statement of view was confirmed by the Government during the early stages of the passage of the Bill in the other place.
On Third Reading in the other place, Baroness Hooper, speaking on behalf of the Government on 11 February 1987, said:
My Lords, this gives me a convenient opportunity to remind the House of the Government's position on the Bill".
At the end of her speech, she said:
We do not therefore believe that the Bill is necessary or an appropriate method of dealing with this one small aspect of the problem". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 1987; Vol. 484, c. 708–9.]
That is what two Ministers, from the relevant Department, said less than a year ago. They came out clearly against the Government's present position.
We are used to Government about-turns. In a short debate that we had barely an hour ago, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told us that, a few months ago, he had sent out a letter expressly saying that the Government would not legislate to impose competitive tendering on parish and community councils. However, tonight the Government moved an amendment expressly to include parish and community councils. Therefore, we are used to U-turns and misrepresentation from that Department of the Environment.
I have dealt with the history of this matter and the Government's sordid role, and I shall now consider the issue of substance. In Committee I made it clear that the initial part of the clause that reads:
Local authorities shall not—
(a) promote homosexuality or publish material for the promotion of homosexuality
had the support of the Liberal party. We believe that, using the dictionary definition — there is no other definition because the Government have not supplied one—that is a proper statement on what should be the role of local authorities. Members on both sides of the Committee accepted that there is a need to qualify that statement, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I tabled amendment No. 32.
That amendment is intended to make it expressly clear that a local authority
may undertake Sex Education in the course of which an awareness of different sexual orientations may be taught.
It seeks not to undermine the initial part of the clause regarding the promotion of homosexuality, but to ensure that it is natural and, indeed, perfectly proper, for education to include education about different sexual orientations that are found in any community. Indeed, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
The unqualified assertions in the three subsections of the clause are extremely dangerous. They represent a possible vehicle for misinterpretation that would be to the grave detriment of a non-discriminatory society or local government. My colleagues and I have two major criticisms. The first is that the original Bill and the clause are almost irrelevant to most of Britain in the sense that they are based on a few localised examples of abuse or possible abuse. The second is that the clause is damaging in its width, and the provisions that the Government intend to introduce to deal with the problem are also damaging. They are damaging to individuals who may well need the benefit of education, counselling, support


and the opportunity to meet and discuss with other people their own and others' sexual orientation. They are also damaging to our pluralist society.
In Committee the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) asked whether there had been any evidence or suggestion of a local authority promoting homosexuality in Wales. The Minister could give no example. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of any example in Scotland. If we are wrong, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to correct us. However, I note that the Minister is no longer present; that shows his interest and the clause's importance to Scotland. Obviously, he does not consider that this is a matter of importance, or he would be on the Front Bench. He sat through the Committee proceedings, so presumably he could have managed to survive the final proceedings in the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne made an appalling speech when he moved the original amendment. He chose to give examples that were not truthful and, until I questioned him in Committee, he chose to imply that a certain publication had emanated from local authorities when, by his own admission, the specific publication of which he had spoken did not. That represents an unacceptable misrepresentation. It epitomises the way in which Conservative Members have sought to raise the spectre of local authorities, especially those supported by other political parties, campaigning for the mass transformation — if that is biologically and genetically possible — of the land into a cast of rampaging homosexuals. That was the implication of the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne cited a second example—it has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Copeland — concerning the London borough of Ealing and a job advertisement. It concerned a worker for lesbian and gay rights, but the hon. Gentleman did not say that that advertisement had had all-party support within that borough. In the event, the post has not been filled.

Mr. Eric Forth: They are all bonkers in Ealing.

Ms. Clare Short: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I will give way, but first I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne because I have referred to him.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne represented a grave distortion of the argument, and it is that type of prejudice that we must ensure does not occur. Such a wide, badly drafted and unqualified clause is open to such prejudice. We have seen such prejudice evidenced by Conservative Members and that prejudice is now supported by the Government, despite the fact that a year ago they recognised the folly of such a position.

Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Member has put words into my mouth. He challenged me on a dossier that I presented to the Committee. I was speaking about a book entitled "The playbook for kids about sex". I gave that example to the Committee to make the point that the book had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1983. I

was seeking not to say that it had been used in schools, but that it was available and had been challenged under existing legislation, yet the DPP had said that that legislation was not adequate to deal with the matter. That was all that I was seeking to illustrate, and the record shows that.

Mr. Hughes: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech. However, in Committee he asked us all to consider a bundle of documents that he had produced. The Chairman of the Committee made it clear that the argument was about local government activities and that that was the only matter in order for debate in the Committee. I asked the hon. Gentleman:
Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that the 'The playbook for kids about sex' is a local authority publication?" — [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1202.]
The hon. Gentleman replied "No, I am not." The whole argument was about publications by local authorities. The hon. Member for Spelthorne can explain his position when he comes, as he no doubt will, to his speech.

Ms. Short: I think that it is important that the hon. Gentleman spells out what he has just alleged. He suggested that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) had attacked Ealing for having appointed a lesbian and gay rights worker. I understood the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to say that the appointment was supported by Conservative councillors in Ealing. If so, I should like him to say that clearly and loudly in the House tonight, so that we can deal with some of the nasty games that are being played here.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is quite correct. The hon. Member for Copeland, or someone on his behalf, made the inquiries that confirmed that the Conservative party in Ealing supported the proposal.
I hope that the House does not want the role of local authorities to be to promote sexuality of any kind. Homosexuals do not happen as a result of campaigns for their promotion, just as heterosexuals are not suddenly brought into active heterosexualism by having a campaign on their behalf. I am not a biologist or scientist, but I know that that belief is founded on prejudice. If it is believed that, by allowing people to be informed of different sorts of sexuality, they are suddenly converted to those forms of sexuality—

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard the comment made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who said that all the councillors in Ealing were bonkers — that obviously included the Conservative members of the council. It might be worth having that on the record.

Mr. Hughes: I did not hear that, but I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) is nodding his assent to the remark. For a moment, I thought that bonking and bonkers had to do with another activity, which might be appropriate to this debate. I do not know whether that is the first use of the word on the record, but I gather that it is in common parlance, so we should talk about it here, too.
I do not believe that homosexuals want their sexuality to be promoted any more than anyone else does. They would argue not for discrimination in their favour, but for equal treatment with everyone else. They want their


sexuality to be accepted and to have equal access to jobs, housing, social and medical help, advice and particularly the sort of advice and counselling that take place during education and growing up.
8.15 pm
If the clause's aim is to protect the young, why are we not doing something about soft porn magazines, which are on sale in newsagents? Why are we not doing something about the matter raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) only last year—page 3 pictures in the popular newspapers? If we are trying not to promote different forms of sexuality, why do we not deal with television advertising, which often tries to sell products merely by appealing to people's sexual nature and motives? Why do the Government suddenly select this target, rather than another?
Of course, there are always people who will take advantage of positions of responsibility in a sexual context. However, that is true across the whole range of sexual activity. There is no evidence of any greater incidence of crime against young people by homosexuals than by heterosexuals. Sadly, there is always the risk that some adults will abuse their sexual adulthood in relationships with the young. But that is not a result of the promotion or advancement of arguments about homosexuality's existence. Indeed, I would argue strongly that unless awareness of homosexuality and acceptance of homosexuals is taught in school, they will be taught away from the classroon, in private, in a more harmful way.
That is why our amendments, and those tabled elsewhere, are important. I have heard informally that the Government plan to resist the amendments; but this prejudiced and bigoted late change of mind, which is presumably an effort to capitalise on a populist view and to gain the maximum political advantage from the scares and fears about AIDS and so on is something from which I hope they will resile. It is about time we had some principle on the issue, and not a sudden U-turn in the space of 12 months.
The debate about the new section, as set out in clause 27, raises many questions of definition. The Minister conceded in Committee that there was no definition in the Bill of the words "promotion", "acceptability", "pretended" or "family". Subsection (1)(b), if unamended, would read as follows:
A local authority shall not — … (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship by the publication of such material or otherwise".

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear." It is unacceptable to prevent the teaching that maintains that other people's relationships should be accepted by all civilised adults, whatever their personal views of the rightness or wrongness of those relationships.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It depends on what one means by "civilised". I do not regard the practice of sodomy or buggery as being civilised.

Mr. Hughes: I am not asking the hon. Lady to regard those practices, or any others, as civilised. I am merely asking her to live in England in 1987 where, just as in 1887, or 1787, those practices go on. From the beginning of time there have been, are, and will be people who are homosexual, living in such relationships, sometimes with children.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Disgusting.

Mr. Hughes: I defend the hon. Lady's right to think that it is disgusting, but I do not defend her right, on behalf of a minority Government, to legislate to pretend that it does not exist. If the hon. Lady made an effort to inform herself, she would realise that these things are not encouraged or discouraged by teaching that they should be accepted—just as other things that she might not like are accepted. There is theft in society: she might not like it, and it might be uncivilised. Burglary, robbery and even murder exist in society. They are uncivilised, but we must teach people that those sorts of things happen and, more importantly, that all our fellow adults should be entitled to make their own choices, provided that they do not try to intrude on the lives and lifestyles of others. That is why the definitions in the clause are extremely dangerous.
Whatever our view about the morality of different sorts of sexual behaviour, and although there might be agreement in parts of the House about the immorality of certain sexual behaviour, we should allow local authorities as the agents of Government throughout Britain to teach that homosexuality is to be accepted. That is what this clause is about. Children, as they approach school-leaving age as young adults, should be taught about the risks in sexual relations and about the medical and other dangers. Those things should be taught as a regular and normal part of their curriculum. I shall give two examples, and I invite the Minister to say on what side of the line he comes down.
The Government use the words "safe sex" in their advertising campaigns. Does a leaflet promoting safe sex for homosexuals, perhaps from the Terrence Higgins Trust, which is funded by the Government, count as promoting homosexuality? If not, where is the dividing line? What about the funding of help lines, counselling lines or centres promoted by local authorities for lesbian women or gay men? Given that local authorities have a duty to all their electors, they must have a duty to gay men and lesbian women.
It is sad that we have to have this debate. If the Government had held to their principled position of less than a year ago, we would not need to have a debate such as this because the reactionary view propounded by some Conservative Back Benchers would be resisted just as it was resisted a year ago.
However, things have changed. The tragedy is that at the last minute in Committee the Government took a new position and are now advancing a piece of legislation that they admitted was defective and that is generally regarded as dangerous. That was why in Committee I expressly said on behalf of my party that we would not support the proposition. That is why I now confirm that the amendments that I and my hon. Friends have tabled are the minimum necessary to make this legislation acceptable. It is quite wrong for local authorities to promote homosexuality, but the clause goes miles too far and should be amended to make it in any way acceptable to the House and to the country.

Mr. Michael Brown: In Committee last week, I said that it was with great reluctance that I was prepared to go along with the new clause. I endorse a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The Standing Committee was bounced into accepting the new clause. The hon.


Gentleman has drawn our attention to the debate that took place almost a year ago this week when the noble Lord Skelmersdale who held office in the Department of the Environment made a speech.
The point that the Minister must address is a simple one. I have a copy of the Bill that was introduced in the House of Lords and it is almost exactly identical to the Bill that is before the House. Even the wording is almost the same. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) who put her name to the new clause, is nodding assent. Therefore, we have it from my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston that the new clause which the Government accepted last Tuesday is exactly the same as the one in the Bill about which the noble Lord Skelmersdale spoke in another place. He said:
I fear, however, that the distinction between these, and what I have described as proper teaching about homosexuality, cannot be drawn sufficiently clearly in legislation to avoid harmful misinterpretation. That is a risk we cannot take.
In these circumstances, in the Government's view the Bill is unnecessary." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1986; Vol. 483, c. 336.]
By accepting the new clause, the Minister is saying that he is now prepared to allow an insufficient and incorrect line to be drawn in legislation. He is prepared to risk "harmful misinterpretation" whereas his predecessor said that it was a risk that the Government were not prepared to take. The Minister's predecessor said that the Bill was unnecessary, but the Minister says that it is now necessary. What has changed in the last year? Unfortunately, what has changed is a degree of populism that is becoming a symptom of a less tolerant society.

Dame Jill Knight: What has changed, surely, is that the Bill as it was passed through all its stages in the other place without question. It came to the House of Commons and the Minister who was responsible for it at the time strongly supported the whole thinking behind the Bill of the need to protect children. However much my hon. Friend may think that that is not necessary, I am afraid that it is true.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has very sincere reasons for wanting to see this legislation go through. I am merely drawing to the attention of the House the view of the Government that was reported in the House of Lords' Hansard. Again I pose the question, "What has changed?" Of course I accept that it is necessary to protect children and to ensure that irresponsible local authorities do not promote homosexuality. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey says, the clause has gone much further than that.
While I go along with the objections of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgnbaston, I do not accept that only those objectives will be served by the enactment of the new clause. Therefore, I shall not vote with my hon. Friends against the amendments.—[Interruption.]

Dr. John Cunningham: The new clause inserted in the Bill in Committee and the amendments tabled by the official Opposition—I specifically refer to amendments Nos. 37 and 38—raise fundamental issues of personal liberty and civil rights.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. If people in the Strangers' Gallery continue to try to inhibit debate, I shall spy strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No one interrupts debates in this Chamber, and I hope that there will be no reference to any interruptions from elsewhere.

Dr. Cunningham: I hope that that rule applies tomorrow in the poll tax debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I say, the amendments raise fundamental issues of personal liberty and civil rights. The Opposition believe in equal rights and equal treatment for all people, including homosexuals. We are not asking for—nor do gay people demand—positive rights or preferential treatment. Equal treatment, however, is central to the civil liberties of all people as citizens. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was right when he said that the House is really debating standards of tolerance in a civilised society. It is obvious that if Conservative Members had their way, those standards of tolerance and dignity would be eroded and downgraded. The Minister should state at the outset of his response whether the Government intend to allow on the statute book a clause which may well infringe the civil liberties of many homosexual people.
8.30 pm
The amendments seek to set out clearly the priorities of the Opposition Front Bench in relation to the new clause tabled in Committee. The amendments make it clear, first, that we do not believe that any local authority has or should have a duty to promote homosexuality, but that this restriction relates solely to the promotion of homosexuality, and not to services or information to homosexual people or those personally close to them, such as their family or friends. "Promote" should not be taken to mean only "actively encourage, help and advise people to understand the circumstances they are in". Nothing in the new clause should be allowed to prevent or hinder the discouragement of discrimination against homosexual people, or to impinge on their civil rights.
That position underlay the decision of myself and my hon. Friends on the Standing Committee not to oppose the clause, to the extent that it covered the promotion of an act, but to make it clear that we intended to seek amendments on Report, as we are now doing.
In the light of the debate that took place in Committee, the amendments are all the more important. Without them the drafting of the clause could lead to widespread misunderstanding, indeed, fear, and could cause serious damage to the rights of homosexual people. In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said:
Nothing that I seek to change by the new clause has anything to do with homosexuals: it is about the act of promoting homosexuality; nothing that I want to say seeks to speak against the freedom of adults to follow their own beliefs and morals in private; and nothing that I intend to say seeks to encourage any person or body to discriminate against homosexuals."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1201.]
If the hon. Gentleman believes that — I hope that he does—and if the Government believe that, they should accept amendments Nos. 37 and 38 and the hon. Member for Spelthorne should vote for them — even if the Government oppose them — if he is to stand by the intention of his words in Committee.
Amendment No. 37 would exempt from the ambit of the legislation any activity of a local authority, or funded by an authority, which is undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination or desiring to protect the civil liberties of homosexual people. The problem concerns the meaning of "promotion" where a section of the population is disadvantaged in some way. The provision of information or services which contribute to the well-being of members of that section of the population are not intended to promote homosexuality, yet some could argue that they contribute indirectly to promotion in a wider sense, merely by improving the lot of the everyday lives of such people.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne denied that his clause had anything to do with homosexual people, yet implicitly he argued the contrary when, as reported in col. 1204 of the Official Report, he stated that the production of positive images of homosexuals amounted to promotion. It is generally accepted in every other civilised society that an important aspect of discouraging any form of discrimination against any individual or group is the discouragement of negative images of the people concerned.

Mr. Wilshire: Can the hon. Gentleman distinguish between negative images, positive images and neutral images? I ask him to consider that point.

Dr. Cunningham: We all know what negative images are; we have seen them thoughout history. There were negative images of Jews and immigrants. Now we have negative portrayal of homosexuality. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he is really not fit to be a Member of the House.
It is generally accepted that the important aspect of discouraging any form of discrimination is the discouragement of abuse of people, denial of equality of opportunity and denial of their civil rights. The clause would appear to include the prevention of such activity. Therein lies the nub of the difficulty with the term "promotion" and the wide terms which it appears to be intended to have. It need hardly he said that the risk that such an interpretation might be adopted by the courts should give rise to serious concern, and that is the main reason for amendment No. 37. If banning promotion means or carries the risk of meaning the banning of anti-discrimination activity, it would be a serious and retrograde step against civil rights in our society, which our amendment seeks to prevent.
We can all agree with the words of Lord Skelmersdale who said last year:
we are all agreed that the most dangerous and pernicious effects of loosening sexual values are on children. Schools must approach the difficult task of teaching their children about sexual matters in a responsible and sensitive manner. We must ensure that children are not subject to insidious propaganda". —[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1986; Vol. 483, c. 334.]
Amendment No. 38 deals with information, advice and counselling to pupils at schools and colleges. The hon. Member for Spelthorne said that the new clause
seeks to prevent local authorities promoting homosexuality, from teaching children about homosexual relationships as acceptable family relationships and from helping others to do so."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,. 8 December 1987; c. 1206.]
If that is really the meaning of the new clause, it would require a local authority to advise its teachers that children seeking information, advice or counselling about their family circumstances, perhaps because a parent was

homosexual, would have to be told that the life of their family was not acceptable under the law. The psychological effect of any such response on a child is difficult to imagine, but one can only think that it would be appalling.
I turn to the Government's contradictory position. The hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes and for Southwark and Bermondsey have raised the point, almost in identical words to those I had written in my notes. On 18 December 1986, almost exactly one year ago, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Skelmersdale, speaking for the Government in the House of Lords, said that the very use of the word "acceptability" in the Bill being debated meant that the Government could not recommend acceptance of the Bill. That is the very issue we raised in the Committee, for the obvious reasons that I have just outlined.
We must know what has made the Government change their mind. What events, influences and legal advice have brought the Government to find not only acceptable, but necessary, something that was totally unacceptable only 12 months ago? We do not have a shred of evidence from anyone to substantiate the argument for the use of the word "acceptability" in the clause, let alone any vestige of a case on which the Government could base such a volte face. We are led to the conclusion — perhaps the Minister of State can persuade us otherwise — in the absence of any evidence, that this U-turn is for the most base and contemptible politically opportunist reasons.
I do not intend to requote every word of the noble Lord Skelmersdale's speech as it has already been put on record by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but he said:
Moreover, it refers to a very subjective word—namely, `acceptability', a word which could occupy your Lordships, sitting in your judicial capacity, for hour after hour." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1986; Vol. 483, c. 334.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that that comment was made a year ago. When hon. Gentlemen pressed the Minister for Local Government in Committee, he appeared to be content with a one-sentence, off-the-cuff answer about such a definition. He said:
I have said that I do not believe that it is part of a local authority's duty to glorify homosexuality or to encourage youngsters to believe that it is on an equal footing with a heterosexual way of life." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1228.]
The Minister is not willing to introduce an amendment or put any definition in the Bill.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I fear the worst of the Government's intentions. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. If he does not, he will have a difficult job to explain to the House why he will not do so.
When the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) spoke in the debate mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) he said that the recent provisions on sex education and a moral framework in the Education Act 1986 should be given time to work in practice, and that the code of practice under the Local Government Act 1986 should be issued first and be given time to take effect. The latter reason is almost laughable, except that these issues are not


funny. Even now, seven months later, the Government have not finalised that code of practice, of which there is now a fifth draft.
Ministers should answer two questions to explain the Government's situation. What evidence do they have—which they did not have in May—that section 46 of the Education Act 1986 is not working in practice and is deficient, and what is that evidence, if there is any? Secondly, they should explain what has changed to make the code to which I have referred irrelevant to that process, and why is no time being allowed for it to operate in practice before yet more legislation is introduced? That code was introduced in previous legislation. It has never been published and given a chance to operate.
Finally, some concern has been expressed by AIDS workers that the Government's amendment on AIDS—now subsection (2)—will not be sufficiently comprehensive. It would be useful, and indeed important, for Ministers to clarify whether care and counselling services would be affected by the operation of the clause.
The exemption covers treating and preventing disease, but it is not clear whether that extends to wider care and counselling services. It must be clear that, without sympathetic advice and assistance and proper facilities for the care of infected people, efforts to arrest the spread of AIDS and improve awareness of it could be severely hampered, and that those with possible infection will be more reluctant than ever to come forward for advice and treatment. The Government would not wish—at least, I hope that they would not — to impede any assistance which local authorities or other agencies can give.
I hope that my hon. Friends will give the Minister time to respond to those points and perhaps they will question him on his answers because we are entitled to know now why the Government have accepted those proposals, and why they have put the House into this position and what they intend to do about it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) or that of other Opposition Members. I question what they said on the basis of constituency experience and personal conviction.
When Ealing council changed from Conservative to Labour in May 1986, there was a long and sustained campaign by the new council to have homosexual and lesbian relationships taught in schools as being as valid as heterosexual relationships.

Ms. Short: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Greenway: The evidence is in the rubric and the documents that were openly circulated by the council to parents and governing bodies. The council made no attempt not to be completely open in that discussion, and that was absolutely right. The evidence is there for all to see.
The parents and grandparents of children in Ealing and other people came to see me in their hundreds and thousands to express their great concern about that policy and to express their opposition to it. I decided to promote a full discussion on it, and in February of this year I arranged a conference on the family, which was addressed

by Cardinal Home, Bishop Maurice Wood, an Anglican bishop, representatives from the free Churches and leaders of the Sikh, Moslem and Hindu communities. There was a section on AIDS, addressed by Dr. Pinching, to try to give the conference the fullest possible profile, and that was right. The conference became a way in which parents, responsibly and without a lot of shouting, expressed their opposition to the policy of Ealing council, and that opposition was virtually unanimous.
Children are vulnerable. I taught in schools for 23 years and saw that children are vulnerable at various ages. They are totally and continuously vulnerable between the ages of 5 and 12, and they continue to be vulnerable, sometimes to adulthood from the age of 13 years, as we know. It is essential that children are protected. I do not believe that the House would ever say that children should not be protected, and I know that Opposition Members will agree with that.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; it is very unusual. I would certainly want to be protected from him. Did he think of inviting any gay groups from Ealing to the conference, which he carefully loaded to get the version of events that he wanted, to achieve the open debate that he said he was trying to encourage?

Mr. Greenway: I did not invite gay groups, but it was open for them to attend. Indeed, I believe that some did attend, because they spoke and put their point of view. I do not object to hearing their point of view. However, the conference was essentially for parents and for the groups of people to whom I referred earlier. I am certain that all hon. Members would agree that children should be protected.

Mr. Banks: From what?

Mr. Greenway: From any insidious and dangerous influences, such as homosexuality.

Dame Jill Knight: I wonder whether during my hon. Friend's conference he heard from parents such as those who contacted me when they wished to complain about the way in which their children were being dealt with in schools promoting homosexuality. Those parents were hit, spat upon, urinated on and one, who was pregnant, was punched very hard in the stomach. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard similar complaints from those poor parents, whose only wish was to protect their children and complain about what was happening to them.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes her own point. I well remember my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) making a vivid speech about that very subject a few months ago.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, I wish to make my speech.

Ms. Short: Please.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Lady will have her opportunity.
For the past 18 months all advertisements of teaching posts in Ealing have contained invitations to men and women of any sexual orientation — to gay men and lesbian women and the rest of it—to apply for posts. My constituents find that excessive and distasteful and think that it is a misuse of public money. I share their view.


Only last week I received complaints in my surgery from parents who said that a homosexual recently appointed to a school makes up his face in school in front of the children, and they object to that. One has to support them. That is wrong. I do not believe that Opposition Members would say otherwise. If they do not support it, they should stand up and say that it is wrong.
It was incorrect of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to say that the Ealing Conservatives supported the appointment of a lesbian and gay officer. The Ealing Conservatives believe that the gay and lesbian rights committee of Ealing council should never have existed and that it should be dissolved immediately. That committee spends money on promoting activities for homosexuals, and that must be wrong.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall give an example. In September that committee promoted two meetings for homosexuals.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, I have already given way, and I want to be brief. That committee promoted two meetings for homosexuals and lesbians at a cost of £2,000. Only 12 people attended one of those meetings. Is that a correct use of ratepayer' money? The House should remember that Ealing ratepayers have had to pay an extra 65 per cent. to Ealing council this year and that many elderly and poor people are having to go without food to pay their rates. Their objections are massive. It is my duty to represent in the House those who object—

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: For the last time.

Ms. Short: I am not sure that I completely believe the stories that the hon. Gentleman has told us. Earlier he told us that lie had been a teacher for 22 years. I ask him sincerely and honestly whether during his 22 years of teaching he was ever approached by a child who thought that he or she was a homosexual or lesbian who was disturbed and troubled by it and needed his advice and guidance. Did he ever give such guidance, and does he think that the sensible guidance that should be given in these circumstances should be made illegal by the proposals that he is supporting tonight?

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhonda): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I have only just given way, but perhaps I may be allowed two in one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We had better have one intervention dealt with first.

Mr. Greenway: In answering the hon. Lady, I may perhaps deal with the question of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is always courteous in the House.
I was approached by children with all kinds of problems and I always found people to give them the counselling that they needed or coped myself, whatever it was. The hon. Lady says that I am telling stories. I am not; I am stating the facts. I have no interest in telling stories, nor do the people of Ealing. They have to deal with a fact that has hit every parent and grandparent—and many others—hard in the teeth. That has now been going on for nearly two years, and they have a strong point of view.

They want the Government to do what the Bill does, which is to prohibit the teaching and promotion of homosexuality.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: This will be the last time.

Mr. Rogers: I am listening attentively to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He often refers to the interests of grandparents. As the father of four children and the grandparent of two, I am interested in children's safety and the pressures that they are under at school. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me precisely what he means when he says that people are teaching homosexual relationships in schools and that children need to be protected? Can he give me any instance of a child being in danger and needing protection? I seek this advice genuinely because the problem needs to be addressed seriously, but so far I have heard nothing except vague supposition.

Mr. Greenway: In Ealing the schools have been invited to put on their notice boards invitations to children to ring gay and lesbian lines. That is wrong, because it is an incitement to children.
I wish to bring my brief remarks to a close. Not many months ago Ealing council's education committee sent a letter home with children as young as five — some as young as four—in which was discussed the teaching that homosexual relationships were as valid as heterosexual relationships. Children of five, six and seven—or of any age — who carry about such material are carrying material which most of them would find offensive if they read it and which their parents certainly find infuriating. Some parents made bonfires of those letters. That is what they thought of them.
I have mentioned the churches. The Roman Catholic, Jewish, Sikh, Moslem and Hindu religions are absolutely clear in their teaching on this matter. They teach that homosexuality is wrong and it is wrong to promote homosexuality among children. Children must be protected. The Church of England—

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Tell the vicars that.

Mr. Greenway: That is a sad comment and regrettably there is a lot in it.
The Church of England has said that homosexual relationships fall short of the ideal. It must be the business of Parliament to protect our children and I will always stand by any measure that protects children. I support the Government strongly in this matter.

9 pm

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I believe that local government has no part to play in promoting any particular form of sexuality. I think that that is readily understood by councillors, local government officers and teachers. Therefore, clause 27 is unnecessary and should never have been tabled. If the word "promotion" has been or could be strictly defined, subsection (1) might have been innocuous and a mere reflection of the status quo, but it is clear from the proceedings in Committee that the Government are seeking to provide a catch-all prohibition that amounts to the denial of the reality of people's differing sexual orientation and differing social organisation.
We should not be dealing with people's personal objections to other people's lifestyles or with any distaste,


however acutely that may afflict hon. Members. We are part of a legislature which is supposed—I suggest—to uphold the freedom and dignity of the individual. That is a matter of the most fundamental human rights—the rights of the individual to express within the laws of the land his or her individual sexuality and still be recognised as an equal citizen. The charge levelled against local authorities is that they have recognised the existence of a minority and have devoted a tiny part of their resources to meeting the needs of that minority.
Among those needs is the right of homosexual young people and adults to be recognised by society as they are — as human beings, with feelings, relationships and families. Recognition of lesbians and gay men is not a threat to those of us in the heterosexual majority. On the contrary, such is the all-persuasive and all-pervasive culture of heterosexuality in advertising and the media that it is homosexuals who have struggled habitually to become heterosexuals. They do not succeed, of course, but their attempt to meet society's expectations leads many, particularly the young, to despair and even to suicide attempts.
Are we now to legislate to deny young people any explanation of the existence of homosexuality among perhaps 10 per cent. of the population? Are we to deny that the child born to a homosexual mother or father—and there are many of the latter—has family relationships? That is the road to bigotry and oppression.
I want to refer briefly to the reason why I tabled amendment No. 47 which has not been selected. It refers specifically to care counselling and health education on AIDS and other diseases. As hon. Members are aware, there is no treatment for AIDS, but there is a highly respected and growing practice of care counselling which is of enormous value to those infected with the AIDS virus. Furthermore, health education and the prevention of AIDS depends on co-operation with gay and lesbian groups which, in turn, can function effectively only if funding is continued. It also depends on the distribution of explicit information which undoubtedly offends some Conservative Members.
I should have preferred the wording in amendment No. 47 to be accepted. As it has not been, I specifically ask the Minister to tell us whether he believes that the points that I have made and the provisions to which I have referred and which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) are covered by the Government amendments.

Mr. Howard: I will deal with the hon. Lady's point fully in my reply. However, the answer to the specific point that she has raised is yes. We take the view that the form of the amendment that she proposed would actually be more limited in the extent to which it would enable local authorities to provide assistance in relation to such diseases than the amendment that I moved in Committee.

Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister. I trust that he recalls that I referred specifically to the need for effective gay and lesbian organisations to collaborate in the process, and to the consequent need for their funding to be continued.
I am satisfied that amendment No. 48 is covered by those standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland.
Finally, let me illustrate the problems that the Government have introduced in clause 27. My constituency lies within the London borough of Lewisham, which has a thoroughgoing equal opportunities policy. In a recent newsletter, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) stated that the borough had spent £3,500 on promoting homosexuality.
Of what, hon. Members may ask, does that promotion consist? The borough has set up a consultative working party that has not voted to spend any money. It has funded two centres, one specifically to help young people with problems over sexual roles, and the other to help any person with problems related to his or her homosexuality. Without the addition of amendments Nos. 37 and 38 to clause 27, that small amount of help would be denied to the constituents—and ratepayers—of Lewisham.
Since last week, I have received about 50 letters from my constituents, who are deeply concerned about the provisions of clause 27, and the repression and attacks that they believe will follow if the clause is passed unamended. However, there are undoubtedly many more people in my constituency who believe the ugly propaganda that has emanated from the Conservative Benches, and will not welcome what I have said. Indeed, local Conservative Members may even seek to exploit it.
I know where my duty lies tonight, and where I believe the duty of the House also lies. It is a question of fundamental civil liberties, which bears heavily upon us. I am sure that hon. Members do not need to be reminded that it is in the treatment of its minorities that the real test lies of any nation's commitment to freedom and human rights. I hope that the Government will reconsider.

Mr. Wilshire: When I arrived in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate, I was not sure whether it would be necessary for me to say anything. However, words have been put into my mouth, and motives put into my mind, by some of what has been said, and I want to put the record straight.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that I had claimed that a document that I produced in Committee, purely to prove the point that existing legislation was not adequate, had been either produced or used by a local authority. The record will show that I made no such claim.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) seemed to imply that my expressed belief that nothing in the new clause would be against homosexuals meant that if I said that I was against positive images of homosexuality, it followed automatically that I was in favour of negative images. I did not say that, and I do not say it now. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Copeland did not answer my question about the role of the third option — neutral presentation, and a neutral point of view.
As the mover of the clause in Committee, I felt that it was crucial for me to listen carefully to everything said here and elsewhere, and to read everything that I had been recommended to read. My postbag is particularly instructive on the matter; I have received 12 letters from individuals, two of them supportive and 10 of them against. The significant point in the 10 letters opposing the clause was that three people said that they supported an attempt to prevent the encouragement of homosexuality, which was exactly what the new clause was doing.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to a neutral approach. The new section 2A(1)(b) set out in clause 27(1) is not a neutral approach because it prohibits the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality, which must be a negative approach.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the duty of teachers to present to children the world and life as they are, and not to cover up the natural form of sexual and social life of at least 10 per cent. of the population of this country? Does he accept that, far too often, young children are presented, in school books and in pictures in school, with the vision of the normal, acceptable, happy family as comprising a married, white, middle-class man and women, with two prissy children who are clean, neat and tidy, yet the majority of children find that this does not relate to their household? Thereby, they are made to feel that they are outsiders and that they are inferior, which does great damage—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that if we have disturbances from the Gallery I have the authority to clear it. I hope very much that that will not be necessary, but I say to the House—the whole House will know this—that the Gallery is invisible to us on the Floor, and I look for good behaviour not only in the House but in the Gallery.

Mr. Wilshire: To reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), I consider that part of the clause to be neutral. It seeks to prevent the promotion of an activity that should not be promoted in schools.
The points that have been made and the matters that I have heard and read about can best be summarised by saying that they seek to suggest three things—first, that there is not a problem; secondly, that there should be no restraint on the presentation of factual information; and, thirdly, that the new clause is an attack on homosexuals. People who say that are wrong on each count.
People who say that there is no problem fly in the face of the evidence — I presented that evidence to the Committee and it stands on the record. People who say that there are few local authorities involved and we should not be concerned—we heard that earlier—and that if there are only one or two local authorities concerned we should ignore them are talking nonsense; one is too many, and I make no apology for being concerned about one.
The other argument that people use when saying that there is no problem is that even if these things are happening they cannot have any effect. Two central arguments are used by people promoting homosexuality: first, that people cannot be made to be homosexual and, secondly, that homosexuality cannot be changed. I have tried to look at the evidence for and against. There is a small amount of evidence to back up those claims and an equally small amount of evidence that they are not true. We should not allow to go unchallenged claims about matters that are opinions as though they are facts.
There are those who say that there should be no restraint on the promotion of homosexuality or on its factual presentation. One of the letters that I received says:
If it is legal it can be promoted.
We have heard claims that any restraint in this area is an attack on civil liberties. If that argument is followed, it will lead to an attitude of "anything goes" in this country. If it is right to encourage homosexuality, one

might ask why it is not right to encourage racial hatred. I think that neither should be encouraged. The other argument—

Mr. Tony Banks: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said — —[Interruption.] If lion. Gentlemen are interested, no it is not a badge of Lenin, it is a Sandinista badge — support your friendly Sandinistas.
Will the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) repeat what he said? Did he actually say that promoting racial hatred could be as justifiable as promoting homosexuality? Does he think that homosexuality and racial hatred are equivalent?

Mr. Wilshire: No, I said that it was equally wrong to promote either of them. All I was saying is that there are those who seek to adduce the argument that there should be no restraint and that anything goes. I do not believe that. I believe that both are equally wrong and wish that to be absolutely clear on the record.
The final argument advanced against the clause is that it is an attack on homosexuals. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) quoted what I said in Committee, and I stand by it. The clause is not a criticism of homosexuals, an attack on private behaviour or a restraint on giving people help, for whatever reason, if they require it. The hon. Member for Copeland asked me why, if I thought that, I would not vote for the amendments. The reason is simply that nothing in the clause contradicts any of the things that I said. Therefore, the amendments are not necessary.
Having listened to everything that has been said and having read everything that has been sent to me, I am absolutely clear in my mind that the things that the clause seeks to prevent are happening, that they create a problem and that there must be a limit on what people can do when they seek to encourage others to behave in a particular way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wilshire: There is absolutely no need for me to stand here and apologise for seeking to prevent local government from doing something that I know that it should not be doing. I see no need to apologise for making it less likely that people are confronted by homosexual propaganda. I see no reason to apologise for standing here and defending the family. The overwhelming majority of the people whom I represent would expect me to do no less.

Mr. Chris Smith: I support the amendments of my hon. Friends and those tabled by the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I rise also to express my horror at clause 27 and to express my profound disquiet that the House and the Government have come to such a pass that sentiments of such intolerance, which is deeply damaging to the individual liberties of millions of citizens can appear before us.
Sad to say, the Amendment Paper does not permit us to remove the clause in its entirety; would that it did. However, let us seek to amend it in the manner proposed so that at least some civilised values can be retained.
First, I should like to say something about the practical fallacies of clause 27. What on earth, for example, do its originators mean by "promoting"? I shall give four examples. James Baldwin, one of the greatest writers of this century, who died about two weeks ago, wrote two books, "Giovanni's Room" and "Another Country", which undoubtedly celebrate the fact of homosexuality and the relationships of homosexuals. They also explore the torment that is faced by many because of the social pressures that are forced upon them as homosexuals. If a local authority places those books in a public library, will it be regarded by the courts as promoting homosexuality?
Secondly, if a pub or club that caters for a principally gay clientele applies for a music licence and the local authority grants that licence, will that local authority be regarded by the courts as promoting homosexuality?
Thirdly, if concerned or worried teenagers seek help or guidance from a teacher, or, indeed, see the advertisements for Gay Switchboard or Lesbian Line which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is so unhappy at seeing on a school noticeboard, and seek guidance about their fears, their sexuality or what they have come to learn about their parents' sexuality, is the giving of guidance, counselling and advice to such a worried or concerned teenager to be regarded as promoting homosexuality?
Fourthly, if the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Merton, which are not controlled by the Labour party, fund, as they do respectively, the Gay Self-Defence Group and the Wimbledon Area Gay Society, are they promoting homosexuality as well?
The originators of the clause have failed to recognise that there is a crucial difference between what they say they want to prohibit and what the actual impact of the clause will or can be. They say that they want only to prohibit the act, as they put it, of encouraging people to be homosexual. It is an absurd notion in any case. We are what we are. It is impossible to force or encourage someone into a different sexuality from that which pertains to them. What is needed is not to be involved in changing, persuading, forcing, encouraging people into different sexualities. What is important is to enable people to understand the sexuality that they have, and that cannot be changed.
Furthermore, I know of no instance where an employee of a local authority has encouraged any person or child to be homosexual. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), in a now celebrated radio discussion last week, said that she could not give any examples of such encouragement because she had not brought her file with her to the studios.

Dame Jill Knight: It might be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman spoke to one or two of his colleagues who have taken the trouble to write to me to ask for the information, which I gave them. I shall gladly give it to the hon. Gentleman now. The local authorities concerned are Haringey, Brent, Lambeth, Manchester, Ealing and there are others. There is overwhelming evidence, not least in the strong objection of parents in those local authorities, of what has been done to their children.

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I have to repeat my question. I am seeking actual examples where employees of a local authority have encouraged any individual person

or child to be homosexual. I am afraid that a generalised list of local authorities is all that we have had so far from the Conservative Benches. That sort of generalised hearsay is not sufficient to base a fundamental attack on civil liberties.

Mr. Wilshire: If an example is required, I shall repeat what I said in Committee. One of the books that was being bandied about in radio discussions was "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin". As far as I can see, there are some facts about that book which need to be repeated. First, the publishers of that book were grant-aided by the GLC, with ratepayers' money. Any hon. Member may refute that if he wishes to do so, but, as far as I can see, ratepayers' money was made available to that publisher, which I believe to be encouragement of the promotion of the book.
The other piece of evidence is that this book was stocked in an ILEA teacher centre. Presumably one only stocks books in a centre in case teachers wish to use them. Those are the two pieces of evidence.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has shown the fallacy of his argument in what he has said, because that book was never put in front of a pupil or used in a classroom in an ILEA school.

Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend was not present for the freedom of the press debate the other week in which we discussed the matters raised by him and by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). They were known to be and had been found to be lies by newspapers. Those lies have now been picked up by certain people who have used them to create hatred and fear. Does it not bring into disrepute hon. Members who peddle those lies in that way?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. It might help our debates on these sensitive and important matters if we based our arguments on facts rather than on general statements and assumptions which have appeared in the popular press and are immediately taken by some Conservative Members to be the truth, which they are not.
The originators of the clause have said that they wish to prevent encouragement, but they have introduced a clause which will do much more than simply prevent such encouragement, which does not in fact occur and is, in any case, impossible. The clause will do much more.

Mr. James Couchman: rose—

Mr. Smith: Time is limited, so I must proceed. Any form of advice or counselling, or work for, or provision of services to, the lesbian or gay community will, in the minds of local authorities, come to be seen to be prohibited.

Mr. Couchman: rose—

Mr. Smith: I must proceed, as many of my colleagues wish to contribute to the debate. The difference between the way in which the originators of the clause say that they want it to be applied and the likely impact of the clause reveals the real motives of those who have introduced it. Those motives have now come into the open. Both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, some things have become sayable which were not sayable two or three years ago, and that worries me profoundly. That is the real tragedy of the clause and the emotions that underlie it.
I believe that there are two motives. The first is the use of anti-gay sentiment for political ends. I shall say no more about that, because it is one of the most disreputable political activities in which anyone could indulge.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend.
The second motive is a desire to change the climate so that to be gay or lesbian is to feel and to be treated as a second-class citizen. The climate has changed. There is more intolerance now than there was five or 10 years ago. The House cannot have failed to notice that last Saturday there was an arson attack on the offices of the Capital Gay newspaper, or that, during that same—[Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) say that it was quite right that Capital Gay should have been fire—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members should not behave in the House like that. [Interruption.] Order. I heard nothing — [Interruption.] Order. Was it unparliamentary?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am quite prepared to affirm that it is quite right that there should be an intolerance of evil.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us keep the temperature of the debate down. The whole House has strong feelings both ways on these matters. I call Mr. Chris Smith.

Mr. Smith: Neither should it go unnoticed that, during the same weekend, teargas bombs were thrown into a crowded pub in Rochester. Nor should it go unnoticed that the number of queer-bashing attacks on gay men and lesbians has dramatically increased during the past year. I invite Conservative Members to condemn that sort of violence in exactly the same ringing tones in which they have condemned other forms of violence.

Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way. I must proceed.
Will Conservative Members go further—perhaps the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) may be able to answer this question — and accept that, in a democratic society, all citizens should find equal acceptance and that second-class citizenship and second-class sexuality have no place in our sense of decent values?
There is another underlying motive behind clause 27. In some ways, it is even more disturbing. It was revealed in a letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne to The Guardian on Saturday. He wrote:
may I answer the question (`will they be populist, or principled?') posed in your leading article … My actions were motivated wholly by the principle of supporting normality.
Does he for a moment realise the profoundly undemocratic and anti-libertarian nature of such a concept as promoted or encouraged normality? I thought that only Soviet-style countries went in for uniformity of that kind. How uneasily does that concept sit with the democratic values that this House, of all Houses, is supposed to uphold.

Mr. Wilshire: I shall he interested to hear how democracy or being undemocratic links with being in favour of supporting the majority. I should have thought that democracy and majority go together.

Mr. Smith: Long ago, I was taught that democracy is as much about the equal rights of minorities as it is about reflecting the decisions of a majority. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman might do well to ponder for a moment the declaration of democratic values that was issued on 8 June 1984 by the heads of state and leaders of Government of the Group of Seven major democratic industrialised countries. It was signed by President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. At its outset, the declaration of democratic values, rightly and fundamentally, states:
We believe in a rule of law which respects and protects without fear or favour the rights and liberties of every citizen, and provides the setting in which the human spirit can develop in freedom and diversity.
It is the protection of diversity that the House, our democratic values and the debate are all about. It is the protection of diversity that clause 27 and the motives that underpin it seek to undermine. I plead with Conservative Members that they should not go in for the all-too-easy, all-too-prevalent sport of gay bashing which is on the increase. Instead, they should acknowledge that true decency and morality exist in recognising and respecting the dignity of all citizens, no matter who or what they are. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I give one more warning about disturbances from the Strangers Gallery? It may not be generally known that clapping from the Strangers Gallery or even from the Benches is not permitted. If we have any further disturbances, I shall, with the deepest reluctance, clear the Strangers Gallery.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: What I find particularly offensive is that an issue that affects between 2 million and 5 million citizens, depending on the number of lesbians and gay men, is being tacked on to one squalid little clause and bounced through in a Bill in the space of a few days. If Conservative Members wish to raise the rights of lesbians and gay men in society, it should he done through a major piece of legislation that is properly debated throughout the land.
Conservative Members are responding to a wave of hysteria and bigotry that has been whipped up by the popular press. It has been absolutely disgraceful. Some people have the misfortune to believe what they read in the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and The Sun. They have come to accept that in some areas children are being taught how to be lesbians. It is easy for those outside who live with the day-to-day prejudice against lesbians and gay men to laugh it off, but that pernicious lie has bitten deep into the popular conscience.
Nowhere have the hysteria and bigotry been whipped up more than on the issue of the book "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin". It filled acres of newsprint. What was the reality? One copy of one book in one teachers' centre that one teacher had taken out to read became the centre of a wave of hysteria that has turned it into a best seller. The people who published the book will probably want to make a donation to the popular press for advertising it. Should such nonsense be the basis of legislation?
We are asked to believe that when the Minister replies he will clarify what "promotion" means. That will be nice. It will also be totally irrelevant. What the Minister thinks will not matter: it is what the judges think that matters. I had the misfortune to be the leader of the GLC when the judges decided that transport legislation which had been interpreted over a decade as allowing a subsidy to be paid, should be reinterpreted to mean that the service had to be run at a profit. We should not accept that it is up to the judges to define what we mean. We have a duty as legislators to pass legislation that is not open to misinterpretation.

Mr. Tim Devlin: rose—

Mr. Livingstone: Let me put the reality of what we face here. I shall not give way. Conservative Members have all the time in the world to make reasoned contributions.
I have here a letter from people who are employed indirectly by the Government. They are employed on project SIGMA, which is an attempt to discover the extent of the spread of AIDS among gay and bisexual men, and which is funded by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Medical Research Council, which is also Government funded. In a letter to the leader of the Labour party and myself they say:
We are specifically concerned about the … amendment to the Local Government Bill and generally alarmed by the growing atmosphere of violent anti-gay feeling of which it is a symptom and to whose exacerbation it is bound to contribute. We feel that the idea it invokes of 'promotion' is either so narrow as to render the amendment unnecessary or so wide as to make it a most potent threat to civil liberty and freedom of speech. We fear its effects on our work, our jobs and our lives.
Those are the feelings of people who are working for the Government in trying to tackle the crisis of AIDS. That letter illustrates what they fear the amendment will cause.
I also wish to deal with the reality of life for lesbians and gay men and to base it upon a survey that was the subject of massive attack by many Conservative Members. That survey was the result of a grant given to the Gay Teenage Group by the GLC to examine the problems of gay teenagers in London. That group conducted a major, in-depth survey of over 400 young homosexuals between the ages of 15 and 21. Its conclusions were published, but disappeared in the wave of other press interest in the aftermath of the election in 1983. Its conclusions were horrifying. It was not propaganda, but the result of scientific analysis of what happens to young lesbians and gay men living in the city.
That survey showed that three out of five had been verbally abused, that one in five had been beaten up, that one in 12 had been sent to a psychiatrist, that one in 10 had been thrown out of their homes because of their sexuality and that one in 10 had been sent to a doctor in the hope that the doctor would cure them. However, the most horrifying statistic was that one in five of those young lesbians and gay men had attempted to commit suicide because of the anguish, loneliness and despair that they felt.
All Conservative Members must ask themselves whether the Bill will increase that despair, or reduce it. Will the amendment encourage suicide, or reduce it? Will the amendment increase fear, or attempt to reduce that fear? I do not believe that anyone can have any doubt. Even if

the language of the amendment had been neutral, the speeches that have been made in support of it have made its intent quite clear. Let us consider where young people turn to for advice. We are told that Conservatives are worried about the effects on children. Society is not geared to help someone aged 13 or 14 who realises that he or she is gay or lesbian. Whom do they turn to for advice? The survey conducted by the Gay Teenage Group showed that 42 per cent. of children who turned to their parents were rejected, were told that they were suffering from some sort of disease and were virtually excluded from the family. Parents are unable to cope with that situation.
The survey revealed that at school 25 per cent. of young homosexuals felt isolated, that 21 per cent. suffered verbal abuse, that 12 per cent. were beaten up and that 7 per cent. felt ostracised. How will the amendment tackle that?
We need to ask how we are to protect chidren, but we must also ask from whom we are protecting them. I was a member of the Inner London education authority for 13 years. Every example of child abuse in our schools was reported to the chairman of the schools committee, and in every example we were dealing with a heterosexual male teacher sexually assaulting girls—[Interruption.] That is the reality that we face.

Dr. Michael Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise the House whether we have to sit here trying to do our business, listening to demonstrations from the Gallery, or will you do what you said you would do and clear the Gallery if there is any further applause?

Mr. Speaker: I repeat what I said a moment ago. It would be with the greatest reluctance that I cleared the Gallery, because our debates here are open to the public and should be heard. As I have already said, this debate has been conducted in very good order on the Floor of the House. Equally, those in the Gallery must conduct themselves in good order. Finally, therefore, I say that if there is another disturbance, I shall have to clear the Gallery.

Mr. Livingstone: The survey showed that children who were homosexual felt that they had had no assistance at school. So talk of promotion is nonsense.
The figures that I gave for ILEA do not stand out from others, either. The FBI conducted a major survey more than a decade ago in America. Its conclusion was that well over 90 per cent. of all forms of child abuse were of a heterosexual nature. If we are worried about children, why, I wonder, are we not making the same efforts to tackle that? Why are we pandering to popular prejudice that comes in on the back of a wave of homophobia generated by the media?
I shall take one quotation from the study by the Gay Teenage Group, which shows what the problem is for a young man who discovers that he is gay:
I remember an incident in the third year when some lad asked me if I was queer. I denied it of course and I immediately withdrew into my shell even further. I tried suicide with a bottle of
pills
a couple of nights later. It didn't work of course. It just made me ill for about a week. Nobody realised what I'd done and I didn't tell them.
That is the reality that we face.
Much of what has been said has been deeply offensive to millions of lesbians and gay men in this country. It is particularly obscene to hear their relationships dismissed as pretending. I know several lesbian mothers who have struggled to come to terms with the discovery of their lesbianism after marrying and having had children. They have had to face the problems of the divorce that follows, and have had to fight to keep their children, because they loved them. In many of those instances I have seen judges take a narrow-minded and bigoted view.
To dismiss those relationships as pretence is incredibly unhelpful to the thousands of women who struggle to continue to be able to raise and care for their children. I have no doubt that the attacks on Capital Gay was a result of the climate to which the clause contributes. If the clause is carried, it will open the way to a load of homophobia and litigious fanatics trying to prevent open and honest discussion of people's real sexuality.
If anyone feels that there is promotion, I ask him to give us examples. I am tired of debating with Conservative Members in radio and television studios and public meetings. When I ask them for examples of promotion, they always say that they have left them in the pile at home, or that they saw them in the paper. That is not an adequate basis for legislation. One does not legislate on the basis of gossip such as that—

Mr. Couchman: rose—

Mr. Livingstone: I shall not give way.

Mr. Couchman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Couchman: rose—

Mr. Livingstone: I invite the hon. Gentleman to make a speech when I have finished mine.
There may be Conservative Members who think that the fears of members of the public who have been lobbying them in the House today are unfounded. I hope that they are right. Only 51 years ago Reichsführer Himmler issued the following decree. I shall read its words, and then we shall see if Conservative Members laugh:
Just as we today have gone back to the ancient German view on the question of marriages mixing different races, so too in our judgment of homosexuality — a symptom of degeneracy which could destroy our race—we must return to the guiding Nordic principle, extermination of degenerates.
Many members of the public believe that the clause is one small step on a path that leads to that sort of end result.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall be brief because last week in Committee the longer the debate went on, the more concerned I became about the new clause. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Gentleman a fair hearing.

Mr. Pike: It was quite clear that the new clause added to the Bill at that stage was wide open to a variety of interpretations and represented a dangerous direction in which to move. The words "promote" and "acceptability" are wide open to interpretation and the signs from Conservative Members about the way in which they believe the clause should be interpreted will cause genuine fear about the direction in which we are moving.
The Government gave their support to the new clause at a late stage because they overreacted to newspaper publicity about the actions of a small number of councils. In many cases those councils have been misrepresented. Even if the allegations were true, the money spent in that way is a tiny fraction of the money that is spent by local government in the areas concerned.
It is quite clear that homosexuality cannot be promoted. People do not choose to be homosexual: either they are or they are not. That is important and should be recognised by the Government. It is wrong to say that if Wandsworth council decided tomorrow to advertise in the "Wandsworth Guardian" and to put on the hoardings that one sees when one crosses Battersea bridge the slogan, "Be gay today is the better way", thousands of people in Wandsworth would accept that recommendation and become homosexual overnight. If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments they should think again about the full implications of the wording of clause 27. Even our amendments do not remove all the fears about the way in which this clause could be interpreted.
In debate I rarely refer to letters from constituents, but I should like to quote from two letters. For obvious reasons, I shall not give the names and addresses. The first letter is from a constituent whom I know well. He holds a prominent position in the area, and in the initial part of his letter he expresses the fears about the new clause that was added to the Bill last week. He says:
My brother is gay and I am familiar with the … isolation and discrimination he suffers as a result. Many local authorities fund gay helplines, centres etc. as a means of supporting, helping, reaching out to these isolated and sometimes frightened people. This work is valuable as it can bring gay people together to help themselves understand their situation and develop ways of tackling their problems. It is imperative that this work continues to support this minority.
Some may feel gays are 'promoting' homosexuality. I do not believe this is the case. They are not trying to persuade anyone to become gay but they need to publicise their existence and their activities because they are trying to reach other isolated and frightened gay people. Homosexuality is a fact of life … we should support the needs of a minority struggling against oppression and discrimination … and continue to help them organise in their areas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, we are not talking about an insignificant number of people. We are talking about a significant percentage of the population who are homosexual and we must recognise that fact and assess it.
The second letter is from another constituent who is a college lecturer. The letter says:
I am a lecturer at a local College of Further Education and am constantly promoting discussion among my students about many issues, and always strive to break down prejudices and illconceived notions. If this Bill becomes law I will be prohibited from doing what I see as a vital part of my job, as any positive statements made about lesbians or gay men could be seen to be promoting homosexuality. I would certainly be unwilling to discuss the subject if I were obliged by law to dismiss it as a deviation. As a mother of two teenage girls I would also hope that if the subject was raised in their school that it would be dealt with in a manner that did not encourage bigoted attitudes. This clause would preclude that possibility. This clause means that a substantial minority of our community will be subject to worse oppression than at present and is to my mind a significant infringement of their human rights and civil liberties.
I believe that those two letters very much summarise why we should accept the amendments. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about the way in which clause 27 may be interpreted.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred in an intervention to the protection of our children at school. We believe that our children at school have the right to be protected, but the record clearly shows that children suffer more of a threat from heterosexual oppression at school than from homosexual oppression, whether it be lesbian or gay. Those are the facts. If we want to deal with protection of our children, it must be dealt with in another way.
It seems remarkable that the new clause should have been added to the Local Government Bill, not to an education Bill, where its implications will apply to state schools, not private schools. Does that mean that it is all right to promote homosexuality in a private school? The Government must answer that.
I hope that the Minister, who I believe is a reasonable man, will recognise that the Government have moved with haste and that they must give more consideration to the legislation. If they are not prepared to accept the amendments, I hope that the Minister will give assurances that clause 27 will be looked at very closely in the House of Lords; that when it comes back to the House we will see changes to it which will make it acceptable; and that the Government will not take such a strong line, which would be a retrograde and regrettable step.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I should like to say a few words, which I think are in order, following the speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I regret that he chose to raise the emotional level of the debate when we are debating something of great concern to many parents and people. For many years I, like him, was a member of the Inner London education authority, but I was also a professional teacher, and latterly an education officer. I came across examples of homosexual teachers who abused their position in schools in the London boroughs of Redbridge and Havering. I shall not give further details, but that took place. Those teachers, in the same way as heterosexual teachers who abuse children, had action taken against them by the authorities to prevent a reccurence, because a teacher is in a position of trust and every child must be protected.
There is concern that the Labour party has moved away from its position when the matter was debated in Committee, when the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that Labour Members would not oppose the first part of the new clause, yet now it appears that they are supporting a radical change to clause 27. I am concerned that they take that attitude when there is grave concern. It cannot be denied that ILEA has as part of its resources guide materials that are considered suitable for use in secondary schools, colleges of further education, the youth service and adult education institutes that positively encourage homosexuality. The extracts referred to from "The Milkman's on his Way" show positive support for homosexuality as a lifestyle.
We do not seek to deny that there are many homosexuals in the country. I do not want to preach, because it is invidious to do so, but an equally valid view is held by Christians, who hold to the teachings in the Old and New Testaments and believe that the homosexual act is intrinsically immoral and evil. That is a respectable view, even if Opposition Members do not accept it. We should not be browbeaten into accepting the argument that we

should not seek to promote what most people believe to be the norm in our society, which is a heterosexual loving relationship. I am sorry if Opposition Members believe that the clause represents an attack on homosexuals in any way. It is intended as an attempt to ensure that what most people in this country—

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Bennett: Most people in this country believe that our schools should not be used as vehicles for proselytising homosexuality. That is what the clause seeks to prevent. It is a worthy clause and I hope that, in a spirit of moderation, the House will accept it.

Mr. Howard: First, may I respond unreservedly to the invitation issued by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to condemn the incidents of violence to which he referred. Of course those incidents were outrageous and intolerable, and of course I condemn them without qualification.
Those of us who served on the Standing Committee on the Bill will have been surprised by the difference in tone that has distinguished this debate from the discussion of the clause in Committee. It is a fact that when the matter was debated in Committee the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is the Opposition spokesman, declared his intention to vote for the clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the hon. Gentleman did. The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike), both of whom have denounced the clause in passionate speeches today, did not vote against it in Committee. In fact, it was accepted by the Committee without a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Dr. Cunningham: Just so that we may have on the record all the facts about what transpired in Committee, perhaps the Minister will be good enough to acknowledge that I said on behalf of the Labour party that we would table amendments to the clause on Report. That is what we have done.

Mr. Howard: I was coming to that. It is true that the hon. Gentleman said that amendments would be tabled—there is no secret about that—and we shall consider those amendments. I shall explain to the House why I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote for the amendments. There is an important difference between accepting a clause without Division while saying that amendments would be tabled on Report, and the kind of attitude that has been expressed on the Floor of the House this evening.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Just so that I can be very sure that the Minister does not mischievously misrepresent my view or that of my party, may I remind him of the very words with which I ended my speech and ask him to accept that that was, and remains, our position? I said:
It is reasonable that we should have a clause entitled `prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material' and if the clause were limited to that I would support it. But it is not limited to that, so I shall not support it.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has made his position clear. However, I repeat that there is a difference between a calm and rational discussion of the scope and effect of amendments which relate to the precise scope of a clause of this kind and the sort of passionate root and branch denunciation of any attempt to legislate on these matters that we have heard from the Opposition this evening.
When I began my observations in Committee I moved an amendment to the clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I began by devoting myself to a speech made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). He had made a very reasonable speech, in which he said:
If the new clause says that local authorities should not promote homosexuality, I shall support it … If it means that the promotion of sexuality of any kind should not be promoted in school, I shall support it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1207–18.]
He went on to express a number of reservations about the clause. When I began my remarks I said that I hoped that I would succeed in satisfying the hon. Gentleman's reservations so that he could vote for the clause then before the Committee. I hope this evening—although I confess with somewhat less optimism than I had in Committee—by reasoned discussion of the effect of the amendments tabled to the clause, to show the House that some of the attacks on the clause and the alarms expressed in relation to it, and the fears, anxieties and reservations that have been voiced by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), are misplaced.
I was expressly invited by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and one or two other Opposition Members to cite examples and I shall start with that. I had not intended to use examples, because the examples were referred to in Committee and are there for all to read. However, doubts have been expressed about whether there is any mischief that must be dealt with in legislation. I shall confine myself to two examples of material that has emanated from the London borough of Haringey.
Amongst other things, the London borough of Haringey has published a leaflet containing an approved reading list. One book on the list calls for a ban on the wearing of wedding rings by teachers and on teachers talking to their pupils about their husbands and wives. Another book entitled "Young, gay and proud" is recommended as suitable reading for children aged 13 and older. The leaflet describes it as "very helpful to everyone." It describes homosexual acts in considerable detail. It was available in Committee, and I said that I could not believe that any Member of the Committee would regard that material as suitable reading for children aged 13.
I confine myself this evening to those two examples, and I remind the House against that background of the two key elements in clause 27. First, the clause is entirely concerned with the activities of local authorities. Secondly, it is concerned with the promotion by a local authority, or by persons assisted by it, of homosexuality, and the promotion of the teaching in schools that homosexuality is acceptable as a pretended family relationship. Nothing in clause 27 will put a homosexual at a disadvantage compared with any other person.
The provisions in subsection 2A(1) (b) are concerned with the promotion by local authorities of teaching of the

acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship, and the need for that subsection has been questioned. However, we think that it is necessary. We do not think that it is damaging. It is the influence of local authorities on what goes on in schools that has given rise to much, if not most, of the public concern about the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities, and we wish to make it clear that the promotion of teaching in schools of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship is not to be permitted.
I endeavoured to explain to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and others the precise purpose of the subsection when the clause was first debated in Committee.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Minister explain to the House in detail why, only a year ago, Lord Skelmersdale — on behalf of the Minister's Department — rejected such legislation precisely because of the inclusion of the word "acceptability", and why his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), a former Minister in the Department, was saying much the same thing on behalf of the Government? What has changed since then?

Mr. Howard: I shall deal with that point in due course, but I want now to deal with the amendment in detail.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Just before the general election there was a similar debate in the House, when I supported what is now in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was present on the Friday morning when I made it perfectly clear that my view was exactly the same as that of the Minister and other Conservative Members who are in the Chamber now.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Howard: I shall give way in a moment —although perhaps I should sit down so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) can give way to the hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend is effectively right in what he says. However, if the hon. Member for Copeland wishes to continue with his point, I shall give way.

Dr. Cunningham: It is a matter of record in the Official Report that the right hon. Member for Brent, North, speaking for the Government of the time, said that there were reservations and that the proposals were "premature".

Sir Rhodes Boyson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will have to give way to the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson).

Mr. Howard: I give way to my right hon. Friend, but I should like then to get on with discussing the amendments.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am always delighted when the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has my speeches besides him. Nothing could be better reading at any time. I do not have it with me, but in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred I was talking about the Government's previous attitude. In May, when we debated the Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill, I defined exactly what our attitude was then. The hon.


Member for Copeland is talking in the past tense. I supported what I had said, and it was put to a vote that morning.

Mr. Howard: I endeavoured to explain to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others in Committee, when the clause was first debated, that the precise purpose of the new section 2A was to put into legislative form the principle set out in the recent Department of Education and Science circular on sex education that homosexuality should not be portrayed as the norm. It is not right for pupils to be taught, in any school, that homosexuality is the norm. It is even less acceptable for local authorities to promote such teaching.
10.15 pm
Debating the section word by word, armed with a dictionary, does not help. The words comprise a coherent phrase, with several elements, and they encapsulate, in a way that the courts will be able to interpret according to the circumstances of each case, the mischief that we are addressing.
I recognise that there may be a need for teachers to touch on the subject of homosexuality in the classroom.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister define, for those of us who are not au fait with English educational definitions, what is meant by maintained schools? Does it exclude Eton, Harrow, Rugby or Winchester, from which Conservative Members come? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) allow his hon. Friend to ask his question?

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister say, with regard to schools that come under the Education (Scotland) Act 1981, what the effect will be on Gordonstoun, which is not an unknown school for members of the royal family? Will these practices be condemned, or will they go unquestioned in those schools?

Mr. Howard: I dealt with this matter in Committee. The Bill deals with local authorities, and clause 27 deals with the actions of local authorities and local education authorities. I said that if a case were made out for it to be extended in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that would be considered by the Government.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I must explain the Government's attitude to the amendments.
In the Government's view, objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, in the way that I suggested a short time ago, would be perfectly proper, because it is not promotion of homosexuality. Therefore, it is not necessary to qualify the prohibition in the way proposed in amendment No. 32. Nor is it necessary to make a clarification of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Copeland in amendment No. 38. To suggest that pupils must continue to be given the advice, information and counselling that they need about homosexuality is different from being taught that homosexuality is acceptable as a pretended family relationship.
There is nothing in clause 27 that will prevent the legitimate provision of information, advice or unbiased

counselling of pupils, but activities conducted by local authorities in a biased way or in a way that presents as a norm a sexual orientation that is not the norm would be stopped by clause 27. We believe that to be right.
I dealt earlier with amendment No. 47, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Deptford. Care, counselling and health education on AIDS and other diseases are part of the treatment or the prevention of the spread of disease. Therefore, I do not propose to advise my hon. Friends to accept the amendment, as it is unnecessary. As I said, it is more limited in its scope than the present provisions of the clause.
We are all against discrimination. We all want to protect civil rights. However, I ask the House to look more closely at amendment No. 37. On closer examination, it would provide a Trojan horse which, in the guise of something to which we all subscribe, would remove much of the effect of the clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), which was accepted in Committee, not only by the Government, but, as I said earlier, by the Opposition. I accept that using the clause as a Trojan horse may not be the intention of the hon. Member for Copeland, but I am less sure about some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Allan Roberts: If the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he give an assurance that the clause will not, and indeed could not, be interpreted to say that local authorities were promoting homosexuality by licensing clubs, bars or venues used mainly by gay clientele?

Mr. Howard: That was one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who put it in the context of a music licence. Local authorities have a duty to grant music licences and to consider properly applications for music licences in accordance with the law. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, in our understanding of the matter, the clause would not, in any way, affect the carrying out by local authorities of those duties.
I return to amendment No. 37, which is concerned not with discrimination by local authorities but with the attempts of local authorities to discourage discrimination by others. The amendment, therefore, becomes a busybody's charter. It deals, not with local authorities' own decisions, but with meddling with other people's conduct of their own business. More important, I draw the attention of the House to the phrase, "the doing of anything", which is a wide phrase. It can cover the promotion of homosexuality. In other words, the amendment is saying that a local authority can promote homosexuality if its purpose in doing so is to discourage discrimination or to protect civil rights.
Let us consider some of the things that some local authorities have considered doing, or might consider doing, with those intentions. We need look no further than the report of the annual conference of the Labour party in 1985. In 1985 the Labour party conference voted
to call upon Labour local authorities to adopt practices and policies to prevent discrimination against lesbians and gay men
What did the Labour party recommend under that heading? We need to look no further than the third item, which states:
to support financially and otherwise special lesbian and gay 'phone lines, centres and youth groups".
I draw the attention of the House to the last two words, "youth groups". There could be no clearer notice of what


we can expect to see some local authorities continuing to do if we accept the amendment. The Labour party conference voted to support homosexual youth groups and to prevent discrimination against homosexuals. Therefore, the amendment would be a licence for local authorities to continue precisely the sort of activities against which the clause is directed. In the Government's view, if the Opposition's amendment were concerned directly with discrimination by local authorities, it would be unnecessary. As it stands, clause 27 will not provide any justification for a local authority discriminating against homosexuals. However, given the way in which the amendment is drafted, it would enable local authorities to circumvent the provisions of the clause and to permit the practices that have caused so much public concern.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) has dealt with the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Copeland and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about what happened a year ago. The fact is that those matters have given rise to widespread public concern. We have sought to deal with them in a way that reflects that concern, but still provides necessary safeguards. For those reasons, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the amendments and the new clauses that have been tabled by Opposition Members.

Dr. Cunningham: The first thing that I want to do is to reject as contemptible the Minister's sickening and, I suspect, deliberate, misrepresentations of the Labour party's position. As I made clear in Committee and again tonight, it is not and never has been the responsibility or the duty of a local authority or a local education authority to promote homosexuality, and it has never been Labour party policy that they should do so, either. The Minister has now heard me say that three times—twice tonight and once in Committee—so I can only conclude that his misrepresentations of the Labour party's position is deliberate and for the basest of political motives.

Mr. Howard: I made no comment about Labour party policy. All I did was to quote a resolution which was passed by the Labour party conference in 1985. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that that resolution was passed at that conference?

Dr. Cunningham: The Minister's slick barrack-roomlawyer approach—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall. The Minister is not doing anything for his reputation outside the House.
The Minister is not so clever as to have noticed that we deliberately moved amendments which did not remove the part of the clause which made it clear that a local authority shall not promote homosexuality. We deliberately did not seek to change that part of the clause—that is what is so dishonest about the Minister's misrepresentation of the circumstances. We could easily have done so but we did not because that is not our policy position.
I also reject what the Minister said about the, to use his words, "Trojan horse" amendments. No such intention or decent and proper interpretation can be put on the purpose or nature of the amendments that we tabled and on which we shall vote.
I regret to say that the performance not only of the Minister but of a number of his hon. Friends has done nothing to enhance the reputation of the House —nothing at all. He knows as well as we do that we are

talking about the realities of our society—not only of society outside the House, but inside the House, including the Conservative Benches. He knows that very well, and I dare say that a number of his hon. Friends feel as sick as we do at his performance.

Mr. Tony Banks: I must confess immediately that I do not think that I have ever felt so frightened in the House as I do now. [Interruption.] That is the reason. If this clause goes through, the House will have taken a dangerous step down the road of intolerance.
There is no doubt in my mind that the clause is a bigots' charter. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are frightened about the implications of the clause, and many will not have the courage to stand up and say so clearly.
I am not gay, but I know one thing, and it is that, if I were, I hope that I would be able to stand up and say so without any fear of intimidation or threat, either from within the House or from outside in society generally. There are many gay hon. Members on both sides of the House who, I am afraid, do not have that courage. It is not their fault. The intimidatory nature of society prevents them from saying that homosexuality is a perfectly normal state for any human being, if that person is homosexual. That is the important point. The clause talks about promoting homosexuality. Hon. Members know that one cannot promote homosexuality. It is a way of life, and it is one that many millions of our fellow citizens actually enjoy, or try to enjoy, but they face discrimination at all levels in society. Seeing what is going on in the House tonight, they will undoubtedly be far more afraid, if the clause goes through, than they were before.
10.30 pm
I see this as unalloyed Fascism. In many ways, I perhaps feel what somebody who was aware of what was going on in Germany in the early 1930s would have felt. It is the beginning of a nasty, insidious movement with which the Tory Government are now prepared to go along.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) read a statement that I hope many hon. Members found chilling. Conservative Members remember exactly what the Nazis did to homosexuals. They did to them what they did to Jews, gipsies and Communists. They herded them into concentration camps and liquidated them. I am not suggesting that a majority of Conservative Members would actually want to open up concentration camps, but I suspect that a significant minority would, and that is why the clause is so dangerous.
I should like to ask the Minister one specific question. He did not actually answer any of the points made by Opposition Members. The Minister knows that, if the Bill is passed, at some stage lawyers and judges will have to interpret what "promotion" means. The Minister has not given a lead. He could give a lead. Of course, judges cannot read Hansard to see what was in a Minister's mind when he made a speech and moved a certain clause. They can interpret legislation only as it is written. The Minister knows that this is too widespread — too diffuse — to make it possible to have an intelligent interpretation of the word "promote".
Let me ask the Minister a specific question about the arts. The clause adds censorship and attacks freedom in the same way in which it attacks civil rights. For example, all gay theatre companies are touring companies. They


perform in local authority theatres or local authority-funded theatres. For example, Gay Sweatshop Theatre Company is the leading gay theatre in this country. [Interruption.] That sort of babble only confirms my worst suspicions of today's Conservative party. Its members are intolerant, bigoted, and they are not even prepared to sit and listen without hissing and making animal-type noises. That is an insult to animals. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a long debate. I sense that the House wants to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Banks: Let me ask the Minister a question. During the past year, Gay Sweatshop has played in local authority theatres in Liverpool, Stockton, Reading, Birmingham, Camden, Oxford, Bristol, Manchester and York. What happens when its members perform in one of those theatres? Will the local authority — [Interruption.] Obviously, my comments amuse the Crawley food mountain. I hope that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) will listen carefully to what I say.
Will that local authority be challenged in the courts for funding a gay theatre group or allowing a gay theatre group to put on a performance in a theatre? Will the Minister make that absolutely clear?
The clause is dangerous. It is Fascist in its intent. Many Conservative Members are too stupid to realise that, too frightened to get up and say so, or too evil and should not be Members of the House.

Miss Joan Lestor: I want to ask the Minister a straight question; I will sit down if he will do me the courtesy of answering it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that we shall have a great deal of trouble because of the word "promotion". If a teacher who is homosexual or lesbian tells the children in the class that he or she is thus, will that in the mind of the Minister be regarded as promoting homosexuality?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Howard: Of course, I will answer the question. The answer is what anyone who had considered the clause carefully and thought about what it means would expect. The answer would depend on the circumstances and the context in which that was said. If Opposition Members do not see that in some circumstances and in some contexts that could amount to the promotion of homosexuality and is not something which should be dealt with in this way, that reveals more than anything else about the need for the legislation.

Miss Lestor: I am grateful to the Minister. It is because I knew that he could not say a straight yes or no that the use of the word "promotion" is so dangerous. There are Conservative Members who believe—and I have heard them say so — that people who are lesbians or homosexuals should not be allowed in our schools. That is one danger of the Bill.
Hon. Members are missing some important points. I spent 18 months when I was not a Member of the House studying child sexual abuse. During that time many adults aged 40 to 50 came to me and said that as children and young people they had been sexually abused, not by school teachers but mostly by married men hiding themselves and

their inclinations within the cloak of the family. They had been abused by their fathers, uncles and near relatives. They had never told anyone before because they thought they would not be believed, because they were ashamed or because they felt degraded. Those people are now beginning to come forward. We know that one in 10 children suffer some form of sexual abuse.

Mr. Tim Devlin: We do not know that.

Miss Lestor: Just a moment. According to the MORI poll and other polls that have been done a minority of that one in 10 suffer sexual abuse within the family or from somebody known well to them. That is why we have encouraged school teachers, health visitors and others to open up the whole subject within schools and to encourage young people who are thus abused, who are confused and frightened by their experiences, and who are not sure what their sexuality is because of those experiences, to come forward and talk about it and to be counselled. We have encouraged other young people who are confused about their sexuality for different reasons also to come forward.
If the clause is passed without amendment many teachers will be worried about the role that they can adopt when dealing with young people. At some stage it is likely that someone will have to say to a young person, "You will have to accept your homosexuality. That is what you are." Teachers are nervous that they will not be allowed to say that.
We have opened up the problem of sexual abuse, we have encouraged young people to come forward at school with their problems and we have brought specialists into schools to talk to children about the subject. I believe that the word "promotion" will lead us back to the path of darkness and despair that was suffered by the 50-year-olds that I have met. I believe that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) should be ashamed of herself for sanctioning arson—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that intolerance is growing and I said, "Quite right." I believe that intolerance of evil should grow.

Mr. Corbyn: I realise that the House is coming to the end of a long debate. However, I believe that there is an extremely serious subject and it is right that any hon. Member who wishes to make a contribution should do so. We should also seek to put forward some of the views that have been made known to us in the past few days.
My constituency has a number of lesbian and gay organisations and the local authority is prepared to put forward policies opposing any form of discrimination on the ground of sexuality. For the past five years, it has been hounded by the local and national press for that policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) — a very courageous and brave Member —came out on this subject and was hounded unmercifully by the gutter press and by political parties that are unfortunately represented on the Opposition and Government Benches. I am proud to say that, in the past five election campaigns, the people of Islington have been prepared to reject the path of bigotry. In June, my hon. Friend was re-elected with an increased majority.
Since the clause emerged — it did so suddenly last week — I have received — in common with other hon.


Members, I am sure—a large number of anguished letters and distressed phone calls from people —previously frightened—who had been prepared to come out as gay and lesbian. They suddenly saw that, in the clause, the light of oppression burnt fiercely. They realised that they would be in physical danger. They have witnessed the attacks on gay book shops and gay clubs and have witnessed the degree of Fascism that is aroused by such clauses moved by Conservative Members.
It was no accident that last summer, an Asian shop in Hackney was burnt down the day after The Sun claimed that Tamils arriving in Britain were about to swamp our society. It was no accident that, given the press publicity of the past few days, a gay organisation was attacked last weekend.
During the weekend I had phone calls and letters from many people who were concerned that politicians should stand up against the filthy tide initiated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) who introduced the clause. On Sunday there was a special meeting of the London Labour party that I have the honour to serve as vice chair. I am pleased to say that that region —in the past it has attracted some odium from the press for supporting the policy of positive images regarding gay and lesbians—reiterated that policy and reaffirmed its position. It called for opposition to all that has been included in the clause.
Most Conservative Members are listening carefully to what I am saying, because they are beginning to realise that if the clause is passed unamended, we shall be introducing into our society a degree of censorship that will be a legal minefield for years to come. Such censorship will create fear in librarians, theatre managers, film directors, writers, publishers and booksellers, as well as in all sorts of other people who want the freedom to disseminate information and views. The House—a democratically elected assembly — will be giving the green light to a degree of intolerance that should not be accepted, here or anywhere else.
10.45 pm
I ask hon. Members to think for a moment before they vote. They know about the way in which the media have manipulated this issue, about the self-fulfilling prophecies and lies peddled by the Murdoch press and others, and about the fears about the alleged promotion of homosexuality in schools, of which there is not one shred of evidence. They know how, a week later, a telephone opinion poll is presented, claiming to support the views that have already been put forward by that same press. The House has a duty to protect the rights of people in our society, whatever their sexuality and opinions on these matters. If we approve the clause, we shall be doing precisely the opposite; so I appeal to the House to reject the clause, which is the start of a slippery slope to all intolerant and discriminatory atmosphere in this and so many other areas of our national and local life, and in society as a whole.

Ms. Diane Abbott: It cannot be correct or responsible for the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) to say that it is quite right that intolerance should be growing. It can never be an appropriate attitude for hon. Members to applaud the growth of intolerance. We know whither fears and intolerance lead.
This is an illiberal, intolerant Bill. It is based on a complete misapprehension of what goes on in schools and of the policies of some local authorities. It is based, in short, on recycled Conservative election smears. It will lead to an increase in human misery. It is irresponsibly widely drafted, and will cause all sorts of problems in the interpretation for local authorities throughout the country.
The tone and attitude of Conservative Members does them no credit. The intolerance behind the Bill should give every responsible Member cause for fear and alarm. I urge every hon. Member to look to his principles and conscience and to vote down the clause by voting for the amendment.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Like you, Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I, too, sense that the House would like to move to a resolution of the issue. I certainly do not want to detain the House, but I hope that hon. Members will allow me a few moments to identify some of the main themes of the debate over the past two and a half hours, for the benefit of those who did not hear them.
It is regrettable that a matter of this importance has come before us after only a short Committee hearing of about two hours, followed by this two-and-a-half-hour debate. As someone said earlier, there is a suspicion that the House is being bounced into coming to a conclusion on this issue, and that is a matter for regret.
This is difficult and emotional ground for the House and it is difficult to get the checks and balances right. We must, for example, be prudent about the language that we use and we must be careful to eschew bogey men, caricatures and prejudice on both sides of the argument. The debate has been important, but I am saddened at the fact that we have not had more thoughtful consideration of the underlying implications of the clause.
We are essentially discussing civil liberties and civil rights more than we are discussing any particular sexual orientation. The Government have put forward the proposition that the Bill is necessary to deal with alleged irresponsible actions by local authorities and to protect children. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the arguments advanced by the Opposition parties. In particular, I draw his attention to the courageous and powerful speech by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). His speech will repay careful study.
In particular, the Minister has not answered any of the questions that have been asked in the debate, and especially the question about why the Government have changed their position from what it was 12 months ago. The evidence is that they have changed, but the Minister gave no reason why that should have happened. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked about a series of examples of the kind of behaviour that may or may not be caught by the provisions of clause 27. The Minister gave no satisfactory answer to that; nor did he give a satisfactory answer to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor).
The interpretation of words in the clause such as "promotion" and "pretended families" is still an outstanding question and I hope that members in the other place will look carefully at that. If the Minister had given an assurance on those important points and if Conservative Members had responded to the debate on the


amendment in a more positive way, we would have been prepared to withdraw amendment No. 32. That amendment merely seeks to provide that authorities
may undertake sex education in the course of which an awareness of different sexual orientations may be taught by the local authority".
It is crucial that that amendment be made in order to avoid difficulties and confusion that the debate has anticipated. The Minister has given no assurances upon which we can rely. Therefore, I invite the House to vote positively in favour of amendment No. 32.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 309.

Division No. 116]
[10.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fearn, Ronald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Alton, David
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flynn, Paul


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Foster, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foulkes, George


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Galbraith, Samuel


Barron, Kevin
Galloway, George


Battle, John
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beckett, Margaret
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Bruce


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blair, Tony
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Boateng, Paul
Gould, Bryan


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Caborn, Richard
Haynes, Frank


Callaghan, Jim
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Henderson, Douglas


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clay, Bob
Hood, James


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Geraint


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cummings, J.
John, Brynmor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cunningham, Dr John
Kennedy, Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Darling, Alastair
Lambie, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lamond, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Doran, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Eadie, Alexander
Livsey, Richard


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McAllion, John


Fatchett, Derek
McAvoy, Tom





McCartney, Ian
Robinson, Geoffrey


Macdonald, Calum
Rogers, Allan


McFall, John
Rooker, Jeff


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


McTaggart, Bob
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerald


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stott, Roger


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morley, Elliott
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Murphy, Paul
Wall, Pat


Nellist, Dave
Wallace, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walley, Ms Joan


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pike, Peter
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Worthington, Anthony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wray, James


Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Randall, Stuart



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Reid, John
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Allason, Rupert
Bowis, John


Amess, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amos, Alan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Arbuthnot, James
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bright, Graham


Ashby, David
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Atkinson, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Burns, Simon


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butler, Chris


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Beggs, Roy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Bendall, Vivian
Carttiss, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cash, William


Benyon, W.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chapman, Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)






Cope, John
Janman, Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kilfedder, James


Day, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Farr, Sir John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gardiner, George
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson. Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hawkins, Christopher
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hill, James
Onslow, Cranley


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Holt, Richard
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Michael
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Price, Sir David


Jackson, Robert
Raffan, Keith





Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Redwood, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Riddick, Graham
Thorne, Neil


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tracey, Richard


Rost, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trippier, David


Ryder, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Hon Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Nicholas
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walden, George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Sims, Roger
Ward, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Ray


Speller, Tony
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 37, in page 27, line 39, at end insert—
`(2A) Nothing in sub-section (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against any homosexual person, or designed to protect the civil rights of any such person.'. — [Dr.Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:–

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 309.

Division No. 117]
[11.04 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Paul


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashdown, Paddy
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buckley, George


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Battle, John
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Beckett, Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clay, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David


Blair, Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann






Cohen, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Litherland, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Livingstone, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Livsey, Richard


Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cummings, J.
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Tom


Cunningham, Dr John
McCartney, Ian


Dalyell, Tarn
Macdonald, Calum


Darling, Alastair
McFall, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Bob


Doran, Frank
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eadie, Alexander
Marek, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Fearn, Ronald
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foster, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliott


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Galbraith, Samuel
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Murphy, Paul


George, Bruce
Nellist, Dave


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Brien, William


Gordon, Ms Mildred
O'Neill, Martin


Gould, Bryan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Haynes, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Radice, Giles


Heffer, Eric S.
Randall, Stuart


Henderson, Douglas
Redmond, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Reid, John


Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hood, James
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Geraint
Rooker, Jeff


Hoyle, Doug
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheerman, Barry


Illsley, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ingram, Adam
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Janner, Greville
Short, Clare


John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kennedy, Charles
Snape, Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lamond, James
Steinberg, Gerald


Leighton, Ron
Stott, Roger





Strang, Gavin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Thomas, Dafydd Elis
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Vaz, Keith
Worthington, Anthony


Wall, Pat
Wray, James


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Ms Joan



Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N.
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Mr. Frank Cook.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Cope, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Allason, Rupert
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Amos, Alan
Critchley, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Devlin, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Eggar, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Beggs, Roy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bellingham, Henry
Fallon, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Farr, Sir John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Benyon, W.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fry, Peter


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Burns, Simon
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Grist, Ian


Butterfill, John
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heddle, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael






Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hill, James
Onslow, Cranley


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Holt, Richard
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Michael
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Price, Sir David


Jackson, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Janman, Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knapman, Roger
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Macfarlane, Neil
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speed, Keith


Maclean. David
Speller, Tony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Summerson, Hugo


Maude, Hon Francis
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Hal
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thorne, Neil


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Trippier, David


Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William





Walden, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Walker, Bill (Tside North)
Wilshire, David


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Walters, Dennis
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Woodcock, Mike


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Wheeler, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Richard Ryder.


Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 27, line 39, at end insert—
'(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of providing information, counselling or advice to any pupil at a school or other educational establishment maintained by the authority as to his personal or social development or any family relationship which can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect that development.'.—[Dr. Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 306.

Division No. 118]
[11.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Allen, Graham
Dixon, Don


Alton, David
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Eadie, Alexander


Ashdown, Paddy
Eastham, Ken


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fatchett, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fearn, Ronald


Barron, Kevin
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Battle, John
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beckett, Margaret
Flannery, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Blair, Tony
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Boyes, Roland
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Samuel


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galloway, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
George, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buckley, George
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Gould, Bryan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hardy, Peter


Clay, Bob
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clelland, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Douglas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cox, Tom
Hood, James


Cryer, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, J.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S' heath)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Geraint


Cunningham, Dr John
Hoyle, Doug


Dalyell, Tarn
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Darling, Alastair
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)






Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Charles
Redmond, Martin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, John


Lambie, David
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lamond, James
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Leighton, Ron
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry
Rooker, Jeff


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Livsey, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McTaggart, Bob
Steel, Rt Hon David


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerald


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Maxton, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Wall, Pat


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wallace, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walley, Ms Joan


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wareing, Robert N.


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wigley, Dafydd


Morley, Elliott
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Wilson, Brian


Mullin, Chris
Winnick, David


Murphy, Paul
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Nellist, Dave
Worthington, Anthony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wray, James


O'Brien, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Neill, Martin



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Parry, Robert
Mrs Llin Golding and


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Frank Cook.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Allason, Rupert
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amos, Alan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Atkinson, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Batiste, Spencer
Brazier, Julian


Beggs, Roy
Bright, Graham


Bellingham, Henry
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John (Winchester)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)





Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Heddle, John


Burns, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carrington, Matthew
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howard, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, John
Jackson, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Janman, Timothy


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Devlin, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Bob
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, Sir John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Neil


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gardiner, George
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hawkins, Christopher
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony






Neubert, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Newton, Tony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Nicholls, Patrick
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Onslow, Cranley
Shersby, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sims, Roger


Page, Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Paice, James
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Patnick, Irvine
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Pawsey, James
Speed, Keith


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Speller, Tony


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Portillo, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Powell, William (Corby)
Steen, Anthony


Price, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Raffan, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Rathbone, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Redwood, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Rhodes James, Robert
Summerson, Hugo


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Riddick, Graham
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rost, Peter
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ryder, Richard
Thorne, Neil


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thornton, Malcolm


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Scott, Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)





Tracey, Richard
Watts, John


Tredinnick, David
Wells, Bowen


Trippier, David
Wheeler, John


Trotter, Neville
Whitney, Ray


Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Woodcock, Mike


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walters, Dennis



Ward, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Mr. Robert Boscawen,


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Alan Howarth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 31

ARRANGEMENTS UNDER EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT I973

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 28, line 39, at end insert:
'(ab) a body corporate established by an order under section 67 of that Act".'.
No. 27, in page 28, line 41, leave out
`concerned, on the day the authority'
and insert
`or body concerned, on the day the authority or body'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Local Government Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This was the first Bill to receive a Second Reading in this Parliament. It will not be the first to receive its Third Reading and that is because we had 100 hours deliberating it in detail in Committee in 29 sittings. That was a thorough consideration of the Bill.
The two main provisions of the Bill concern compulsory competitive tendering and the outlawing of anti-competitive contract compliance clauses. It is significant that both those subjects were the subject of early day motions supported by many of my hon. Friends in the previous Parliament.
It is the Government's established policy to ensure that we obtain better value for money in local government. The Bill will facilitate that and it deserves the strong and enthusiastic support of the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: This may not be the first Bill to receive its Third Reading in this Parliament—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Cunningham: However—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting for five minutes while the Strangers' Gallery is cleared.

Sitting suspended at 11.30 pm.

Mr. Speaker: resumed the Chair.

Dr. Cunningham: The Under-Secretary of State said that this was the first Bill to complete its stages in the House this session. There will be few Bills more obnoxious than this one. It takes powers away from local authorities, it curbs their rights to use the media, it supports the Fascist apartheid regime in South Africa. [Interruption.] The Bill specifically brings aid and comfort to the apartheid regime in South Africa. It has the unique distinction of undermining civil rights abroad and doing exactly the same at home. Few Bills going through the House have that unique obnoxious facet. We are totally opposed to all its aspects, and we will divide the House on Third Reading.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I endorse what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said. there are four parts to the Bill, all of which are equally unacceptable to these Benches. We oppose competitive tendering being compulsorily imposed on local government, not because it is bad, but because the Government are compelling local authorities to do it according to the Government's wish. Hon. Members are not alone in opposing that aspect of the Bill, because competitive tendering is opposed by all the organisations of local government outside the House. It is also opposed by the Audit Commission, by academics and around the land.
The Minister said in relation to previous debates this evening that we are all against discrimination, yet it is clear in part II that the Government are prepared to

countenance discrimination at home in relation to those with disabilities, ethnic minorities and women, and abroad particularly in relation to South Africa. By preventing local authorities from taking a moral stand on South Africa the Government have declared their true intentions and true colours and their willingness to sustain that regime.
On housing, the Government are preventing schemes that should have been able to go ahead, and they are preventing local authorities from being able to sell properties to housing associations at a reasonable price.
In the last part of the Bill the Government are adding to restrictions on local authority publicity, for which they have given no justification. Tonight they have evidenced their clear prejudice on matters of discrimination in relation to homosexuals and homosexuality, and, to cap it all, they are even to abolish the dog licence.
The Bill should be rejected. It enshrines more selfishness in the law of the land and confirms the dogma and prejudice for which the Government will be particularly remembered. Their morality is not the morality of the Opposition or of the country. The Bill must be resisted, and I hope that it will be defeated before it completes its passage through the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 215.

Division No. 119]
[11.40 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Allason, Rupert
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butler, Chris


Amos, Alan
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cormack, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Couchman, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cran, James


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Body, Sir Richard
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dover, Den


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Tony


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Eggar, Tim


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Emery, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Bright, Graham
Farr, Sir John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Forman, Nigel






Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gardiner, George
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hawkins, Christopher
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hill, James
Onslow, Cranley


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Holt, Richard
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Michael
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Price, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Jackson, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Janman, Timothy
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ryder, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor





Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trippier, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Speller, Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Squire, Robin
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Steen, Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis
Walters, Dennis


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wells, Bowen


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thorne, Neil
Woodcock, Mike


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, J.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Dr John


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Darling, Alastair


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Ashdown, Paddy
Dixon, Don


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beckett, Margaret
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Fearn, Ronald


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fraser, John


Buchan, Norman
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Buckley, George
Galbraith, Samuel


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Clay, Bob
Gould, Bryan


Clelland, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coleman, Donald
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cousins, Jim
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cox, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.


Cryer, Bob
Henderson, Douglas






Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hood, James
Parry, Robert


Howarth, George (Knowslay N)
Patchett, Terry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Geraint
Pike, Peter


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Randall, Stuart


Illsley, Eric
Redmond, Martin


Ingram, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Janner, Greville
Reid, John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Kennedy, Charles
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Lamond, James
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Leighton, Ron
Sedgemore, Brian


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Livsey, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon David


Macdonald, Calum
Steinberg, Gerald


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McTaggart, Bob
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Wall, Pat


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wallace, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N.


Maxton, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meale, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd


Michael, Alun
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winnick, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morley, Elliott
Worthington, Anthony


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Wray, James


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Frank Cook.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Rate Support Grant (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1988–89 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient for the House if we also discuss the following motions:
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 158), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1985–86 (House of Commons Paper No. 159), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Mr. Walker: Hon. Members will have had an opportunity to examine the reports and my statement to the House—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Strangers Gallery has been cleared, but hordes of Welsh people would have been in the Gallery to listen to this debate on this important order. Therefore, I wonder whether the Gallery could be reopened so that the Welsh people can listen to the debate, or whether you would consider it wiser to adjourn until 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. We could have a debate for one and a half hours and then start Wednesday's proceedings at half-past 2. Perhaps we would then have a better response. Obviously my peroration must wait for another occasion because all my constituents have been turfed out of the Gallery.

Mr. Speaker: I can give the hon. Gentleman some comfort. I have already asked the Serjeant at Arms to reopen the Strangers Gallery. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman gets up to make his brief contribution to the debate the Gallery will fill.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that we are all relieved that what will become a Gallery crowded with the constituents of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) will be able to witness the debate.
Hon. Members have had an opportunity to examine the reports and my statement to the House last week, which summarised my decisions. They will know that for 1988–89 I have provided for fair and realistic increases in all the key components of the settlement—increases which exceed the projected increase in costs for the economy as a whole. In retaining broadly the same block grant mechanism as last year, I have also introduced a high degree of stability to the rate support grant system. Consequently, on the basis of this settlement, councils will have a sound basis for planning and developing their services over the coming year.
It is, I know, inevitable that Opposition Members will say that the settlement is not good enough; they always do. It would be remarkable if they did not. But the record speaks for itself. The level of local government current expenditure since 1979–80 has increased in real terms by £152 million, or 11 per cent. During the years when Opposition Members controlled the purse strings, it fell in real terms by £58 million, or 4 per cent. Grant, too, has been set at the generous level of £1,256 million—about £1,200 per household.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has his figures at his fingertips. Exactly how much money has been taken from Wales in rate support grant since 1979? Knowing that will enable us to put in proportion all the other figures that he gives. If he gives us the whole figure, without equivocation, that will assist us and the debate.

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly be happy to refer to those exact figures. I shall also give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the reduction in grant that took place when he was a member of the Cabinet. The two sets of figures will compare well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be proud of what he achieved during that period. I shall be pleased to give him both sets of figures in my final remarks. When the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet, local government expenditure fell in real terms.

Mr. Foot: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give me the figure I asked for? Any other figures that he likes to bring up are OK with me, but how much has been taken from Wales since 1979?

Mr. Walker: We have not taken anything. Although the percentages have come down in cash terms, I shall be happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the figures, in real terms, that he wants. I hope he is proud of the figures I have just given — local government expenditure fell in real terms when he was a member of the Cabinet, and has risen in real terms during the time that I have been a member of the Cabinet. I hope he will reflect carefully on that.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend seen the figures for total public expenditure in Wales, which show that we receive £108 per head, compared with £94 per head in England?

Mr. Walker: That is true on any figures or comparisons.
This, however, is not just a debate about numbers or the technicalities of the present rate support grant system. It is a debate about local government in Wales, about the provision of services, about the efficiency and effectiveness of those services, about the responsibilities which councils have to safeguard the interests of ratepayers by budgeting responsibly and about the need for local authorities to be sure that the importance of their role is recognised and supported by the Government and this House.
I must say that I have been impressed and encouraged in discussions with the leaders of Welsh local authorities, and in particular with their representatives at meetings of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, by their sense of purpose and determination to ensure that the services they provide reflect the needs of their communities. That does not mean that expenditure on those services must increase before they can develop further. The authorities know that they have a duty to secure efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services. They also know that they have a responsibility to exercise sound stewardship over the use of the resources which they spend on behalf of their electorate. There is an overall budget of £1,894 million, which amounts to £1,800 per household in Wales. When we reflect that that is so, we might also bear in mind that the domestic household rate contribution is, on average, £300. We must recognise that this is an important part of their role.
I am confident that in responding to this settlement all councils will recognise that it will give them real and

tangible support in providing the services that are essential to their communities and to Wales. In doing so, it is important that councils should plan those services and set their budgets in a way that is sensitive to the needs of their domestic and business ratepayers and complementary to the work that is being done to encourage and foster economic development in Wales.
Local authorities have a unique and important role in the ongoing process of economic regeneration, but expenditure by councils on important infrastructure work will not be as beneficial to their communities if rates are increased by an unreasonable amount.

Sir John Stradling Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend publish his projections for local authority rate rises for 1988–89 for spending in line with the settlement? That would be helpful to all concerned.

Mr. Walker: I shall make those figures available. I shall see that they are placed in the Library.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will they give details of the effect on each authority?

Mr. Walker: They will reflect on each county and district authority. It is important that central and local government and the people of Wales work together in partnership to foster the interests of the whole Principality. I am especially conscious of the special needs of areas such as the south Wales valleys. I have already said that I shall bring forward in the new year my proposals for tackling the problems of the valleys. The local authorities concerned will have a vital role to play. In moving towards a new local government finance system, it is highly desirable that all concerned should be satisfied that the method for establishing the expenditure needs of local councils is sound.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: About three paragraphs ago, as the Minister struggled through his brief, he said that there would be a valleys initiative,. Do the rate support grant figures include the valleys initiative, or will that initiative be additional?

Mr. Walker: I am preparing a range of measures for the valleys, some of which will involve local government. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures that we published about the rating effects of these proposals for the valleys, he will see that the valleys have done fairly well out of this settlement. I repeat that there will be a range of measures, some of which will be unconnected with the rate support grant. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those other aspects with great enthusiasm.
The present arrangements have been developed over the years in conjunction with the local authority associations and generally provide an equitable basis for distributing grant. They take due account of factors which reflect differing needs throughout the Principality, including those of councils in sparsely populated areas and of councils in urban areas, including the valleys. In dealing with any system of this kind, there is always political pressure for changes to be made to secure a better result for a particular council. There is always room for improvement to reflect genuine changes in circumstances and I have asked my officials, in conjunction with the local authority associations, to continue to review the existing arrangements with this in mind. This settlement is both fair and realistic.

Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman says that the settlement is fair and realistic and he has used the word "sensitivity". May I refer him to the problems in Wales, and especially those in Clwyd and in my constituency, about the provisions of speech therapy services? I have met many parents who are very worried about the lack of speech therapists. Given the massive budget that he has outlined, would he be prepared to look especially at the worries of parents who say that there are insufficient speech therapists in Clwyd and in my constituency?

Mr. Walker: I understand the anxieties in that respect. In the specific and supplementary grant estimates and in the provisions on education and the like, perhaps additional activity on that can be generated. I am interested in the subject because for some time I have been a trustee of a trust for charitable work for the dyslexic child. I am aware of the real problems connected with speech disadvantage and of the important work done by speech therapists.
As I say, this settlement is both fair and realistic and should enable local authorities to play a crucial and exciting role in conjunction with central Government in Wales. It reflects my firm commitment and support to local government, and it gives local authorities the means to continue to play an important role in Welsh life. I am sure that local authorities in Wales will respond to this opportunity in a responsible way, by setting budgets and rates at a reasonable level. If they spend in line with the settlement, rates should rise on average by no more than 1·3 per cent.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in order to get the desired rate effect it will be necessary for the wage increases negotiated for both manual and white collar workers to be largely absorbed by efficiency increases? Will that mean that there will have to be redundancies and loss of jobs to balance the figures, to get the rate increases to which he referred?

Mr. Walker: When I have spoken to the local authorities, they have argued that the increases will enable them to obtain greater productivity and improve efficiency. They cannot have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that improved efficiency may cause a change in the nature of employment, but it would be an absurd local authority which said that it would go in for more inefficiency in expenditure in order to employ more people on an inefficient basis. It is important that high standards of efficiency are obtained in local government. I believe that local authorities accept that. If the high wage increases do not bring an improvement in productivity, there is a considerable argument that the adverse effect on jobs of inflationary wage increases without an improvement in productivity could be considerable, particularly in the Principality. I hope that in future negotiations consideration will be given to the impact of those negotiations. The settlement should commend itself to the House.

Mr. Alan Williams: It is my wish for as many Back Bench colleagues as possible to take part in the limited debate, and, as I stated most of my objections, which remain unchanged, during the Minister's statement, I will try to be brief so as to facilitate other contributions.
The Secretary of State will appreciate that the debate has come close on the tail of the statement—literally

one week later. The local authorities are still assessing the impact, but the Minister will be aware that, on behalf of the counties, Mr. Tettenborn has gone on record as saying that, as we forecast last week, his projection is that the settlement will cause a combination of rate rises and service cuts. The district councils have forecast that about 15 of the 37 districts will have rates increases in excess of 10 per cent. —higher than the Secretary of State's forecast. Only today they suggested that the average rise will be somewhere between 7 and 9 per cent., which is substantially higher than the going rate and, again, substantially higher than the Secretary of State has suggested.
I said in my response to the Secretary of State's statement that local authorities tend to have a better track record of forecasting than the Welsh Office. Only last year my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) forecast to the Minister's predecessor that the increases would be between 10 and 20 per cent. He was assured categorically by the then Secretary of State that in no case—not just in a few cases—would the rate bill in districts increase by anything like 10 to 20 per cent., yet 10 districts exceeded 10 per cent. and two districts exceeded 20 per cent.—21 per cent. in Dynevor and 26 per cent. in Colwyn.
The Secretary of State has made the point that successive spokesmen at the Dispatch Box have made. We look to local authorities to achieve savings through efficiency. No one objects to greater efficiency, but one must recognise that it is not an unlimited path which can be followed. It is not possible to go on deducting hypothetical sums year after year and expecting councils to meet those deductions through extra efficiency.
Let me demonstrate that assertion in the simplest way. About 70 per cent. of local authorities' costs are labour costs, and to achieve increased efficiency they would need reorganisation, mechanisation or computerisation. The essence of all three courses, which are managerial decisions, is that capital investment is needed. Only a week before the Secretary of State made a statement whose terms were contingent on increased capital investment to allow increased efficiency, he came forward with a capital programme that actually cut the capital allocation by £10 million.
The Secretary of State cannot have it all ways. If he wills efficiency, he must equally will the means to enable councils to make the investment to make greater efficiency possible. There are limits to how much one can achieve by the simple process of axing manpower without putting in place services of a different kind—computerised and so on—to ensure that the services necessary to our people can be sustained.
We hear about all manner of algebraic formulae when we discuss the rate support grant. However, the critical formula—what matters to our people in Wales —remains the sum that is available to spend in relation to the present quality of services and the quality of services to which they are entitled to aspire. As I said last week, it is no good using the slick Treasury formula of real increases based on simple cost-of-living assessments. According to the Chancellor, the cost of living will increase by 4·5 per cent. in the next year. That is his prophesy, not ours. That means that the average family needs an extra 4·5 per cent. to stand still. There is a tendency to assume that the cost-of-living index is a universally applicable yardstick of cost increases. Let us remember that when we


talk of real increases, we are talking about increases in the cost of living geared to the average spending pattern of the average family. But we are talking about nothing of the kind tonight; we are talking about labour-intensive services in county and district councils.
The Secretary of State knows—his officials, in conjunction with council officials agreed this—that to meet higher cost increases £60 million more than he has allowed for would be needed to enable councils simply to sustain the quality of services that they offer at the moment. Most hon. Members will recognise that it is too much to expect local authorities to deliver that £60 million through extra efficiency this year. That would not have been possible even if the capital investment had been made available to local authorities to enable them to install new systems; in fact, that capital investment has been denied them.
It is important that the people of Wales do not allow the Government to use the counties and districts as their bodyshield to take the blame for the cuts that they have imposed. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the people of Wales that the councils have been placed over a barrel by the combination of his statement last week with the penalty system that the Government are operating concurrently? Will he make it clear to those who say that, despite the £60 million shortfall, there need be no cuts in services, that under this vindictive penalty system—the so-called negative marginal grant system — if councils tried to spend ratepayers' money to make up the shortfall that he announced last week, they would need to raise not just £60 million but a further £30 million to make up for the fine that would be imposed on them by the Government in the form of cuts in their grants? In fact, to make up the shortfall imposed by the Government, they would need to raise £90 million extra from the ratepayers and that would mean an extra 30p on the rates.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am struck by the right hon. Gentleman's conversion to the benefits of efficiency. He then suggested that cuts were being made in services. How can he square those two points with the third fact that is emerging of a significant increase in staffing levels in Welsh local authorities that is predicted to continue? How can he square those three points?

Mr. Williams: I invite the hon. Gentleman to participate in the debate that will take place tomorrow and on Thursday on the Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill. He will find that, as a result of the poll tax being introduced by the Conservative party, it will he essential as I hope to show tomorrow—for local authorities to recruit on a substantial scale to meet the requirements that the Government will be imposing on them by changing rating systems.
A week ago I suggested to the Secretary of State that as the extra spend allowed in Wales this year is only 5.3 per cent. compared with 7 per cent. in England, that means that our authorities are losing a possible £27 million of spending power because they will not have the same 7 per cent. formula. The Secretary of State shook his head last week in disapproval and he shakes his head again tonight. He did not give a detailed answer to that point. If that is wrong, it should be exposed and explained. However, I understand that there will be a £27 million shortfall and I should welcome an explanation from the Secretary of State about that. I recognise the problems of making a

statement, but last week hon. Members asked about 24 questions during the statement and the Secretary of State addressed only eight of them.
During the statement I stressed that the Government grant as a proportion of expenditure has fallen this year from 66·7 per cent. to 66·3 per cent. That is a cut of only £6 million, but it is another cut. However, the Secretary of State was unable to answer the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about the loss to Wales. When we consider the percentage of grant that was paid in 1978–79, we see that the cumulative loss to Wales has been £750 million. As I said, it is not just that we have lost £750 million. That money has to be raised from the ratepayers to sustain services and is not available for other necessary spending in Wales.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that central Government spending on education in Wales has decreased by 10 per cent. since 1979 while spending by local government has increased by 44 per cent.? Local government has to make up the shortfall that we see in crumbling buildings, the shortage of books and the many services to which parents have to contribute.

Mr. Williams: Exactly. As my hon. Friend has said, it comes back to the families, households, parents and children. The £750 million cut on a household basis means that every household in Wales has lost more than £700 worth of Government grant since the Government came to office and began to cut back their percentage of RSG.
That is happening in an area of Britain with the lowest household income, an area with 42 per cent of its households—households, not individuals —on annual incomes of less than £4,000 a year. The Government have taken the equivalent of £700 from each of those households. Considering the way in which Wales has been deprived in the past, why on earth did the Secretary of State have to deprive us further?

Sir Anthony Meyer: I start from a premise that is not so dissimilar from that of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—it was a pleasant change to hear him in a more measured mood tonight—though I come to very different conclusions from him.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the settlement that he has achieved for Wales. It is substantially better than the one that England has had, and I know that much of his success has been due to the way in which he fought his corner in the Cabinet, as did his predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell. My right hon. Friend has been the more able to get a good result because of the sensible and co-operative attitude adopted by Welsh local authorities at virtually every level. What is more, they have responded to my right hon. Friend's clear readiness to work in partnership with them.
My right hon. Friend brings to his job an even greater readiness than did his predecessor to recognise the indispensable part that public funding can play in attracting private investment and the part that a lair level of rate support grant can play in enabling local authorities to do their job better, though I recognise that there is a valid argument between the two sides of the House about what constitutes "a fair level". Thanks also to my right


hon. Friend, Wales has largely avoided the constant acrimony that has bedevilled relations between central and local government in England.
There is always scope for more efficient management by local authorities. Nowhere is this more evident than in education, but here we come up against a difficulty that is partly of the Government's making. A lot of rather glib talk about parent power and the right to choose is making it far more difficult for local education authorities to carry through schemes which necessarily involve closing down some schools and changing the nature of others. These closures will always be fiercely fought by the parents concerned and by the local councillors on the education committee.
Furthermore, local authorities have a valid argument when they claim that their costs have gone up more than the rate of inflation, because their operations are highly labour-intensive and wage rates, which are nationally bargained and over which they exercise no control, have risen well ahead of inflation. And local authorities do not have the same possibility of streamlining their labour force as manufacturing industry enjoys. Indeed, there are now really serious shortages in several departments. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) talked about speech therapists. In Clwyd we have a dramatic shortage of social workers in many areas of the county.
None of this is any reason for relaxing the pressure on local authorities to increase their efficiency, both by cutting costs and by finding ways of generating revenue, but it is important to recognise, as my right hon. Friend manifestly does, that there are instances where a capital allocation now, or a tapering subsidy, may enable a local authority to make worthwhile savings or produce substantial revenues later, and the RSG properly takes account of this possibility, and should go on doing so.
A case in point is the Bodelwyddan castle project, which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) criticises so strongly. I make no complaint about that, and it is right that Clwyd county council should be kept under the most relentless scrutiny to ensure that the project is being carefully managed. None the less, this is a project that will do a great deal to enhance the tourist image of north Wales. Although it is within my constituency, the benefits from it, situated as it is alongside the A55 expressway, will fan out along the coast. It will provide the perfect stopping place for families travelling further west along the coast, as well as an ideal excursion for those spending their holidays in north-east Wales and day visitors to the area. In short, it will be of benefit to north Wales, even to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The Secretary of State has tried to paint an optimistic picture of his rate support grant settlement for 1988–89. That is his privilege, but he should not expect other hon. Members to agree with his conclusions.
The right hon. Gentleman's spending plans affect many of our constituents in their daily lives. Three sectors are affected: first, there is the effect on services; secondly, there is the impact on capital expenditure; and, thirdly, there is the resulting effect on rates.
With regard to the effect on services, the education system is under stress, and the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) mentioned some of the effects of that. Social services in many local authorities are near to breaking point. If that is contrasted with the budget for the police force—which we all support—we see that it has received a larger slice of cake than some of the other sectors that need the resources.
In Powys the block grant has fallen as a proportion over the past 12 years by 15 per cent. In the past eight years it has fallen by 10 per cent. Labour costs account for two-thirds of all costs. The grant-related expenditure formula is not a fair measure statistically and it is centrally assessed, yet there is great variability in factors operating in Wales.
Wage settlements have impinged on expenditure. For example, manual workers' wages have increased by 10 per cent., wages for home helps by 18 per cent., and teachers' wages by between 8 and 9 per cent. When one compares the two thirds of local authority costs which are labour costs with the 4·3 per cent. increase in costs in the Secretary of State's statement—only 1 per cent. on top; in other words, a 5·3 per cent. increase—one finds that there is an immense gap between the increases in labour costs and the award made. In this light the award is seen to be not so generous, and it puts councils under pressure.
The block grant will remain at two-thirds of expenditure of local authorities in Wales. Approximately £5 million has been lopped off it this year. In July 1987 Powys was expecting to receive £200,000 more than it will receive under the award.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures show that yet again the Government have failed to have proper regard to the sparseness of the population of rural mid-Wales? As a result, we are facing cuts in education, which we can see in our schools, and cuts in hospital services.

Mr. Livsey: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State should have a super-sparsity factor for areas of little population.
The effect of the settlement on capital expenditure programmes must not be ignored. The Secretary of State knows from my remarks in the Welsh Grand Committee my views on the inadequacies of the Welsh Office's roads programme. However, housing is one of the weakest points of Government policy in Wales. There was a drop in the housing capital allocation from £154 million to £145 million, which was a 10 per cent. drop in real terms. We heard about that matter from the Welsh Office of the Association of District Councils today.
Forecasts are based on a continuing buoyant level of council house sales. During the Secretary of State's statement last week, three of us asked why more council house receipts could not be spent at above the 15 per cent. level that is allowed. The Secretary of State did not respond to that question because, I believe, he does not believe in his own Government's policy.
Receipts from council house sales now play an important part in the financing of local government and are an accounting device. There should be a gradual phased allowance of more council receipts being spent on new housing stock. The figures before us depend on more council receipts, when so far in the current year the take of council receipts has fallen short of the Welsh Office's


own target. We believe that those council receipt targets cannot be increased. The scope is not there. Much of the stock has already been sold, and when one considers average incomes in Wales, one realises that the possibility of people buying their own council houses is now slight.
Finally, how will the Secretary of State's settlement affect the rates? Without question, they will increase and by more than any of us would like. The Government's penalties for that will not help. We accept that efficiency measures will play a part, but they cannot be expected to play all the part. The block grant percentage is continuously reducing, yet local authorities must still provide and maintain services. It is ratepayers who suffer. In my constituency in Powys the ratepayers' contribution to running the authority has increased by over 50 per cent. during the eight-year period during which the block grant has declined by over 10 per cent. The fact is that Government policy is having a direct bearing on rate increases, which affects the very people whom the Government least wish to penalise. As a former lecturer, one is tempted to write on the bottom of the report, "Must do better."

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I was struck by the contributions of the two opening speakers in the debate. Naturally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State started with a measured, positive and realistic approach to the rate support settlement for 1988–89 and local council spending in general. It must have been persuasive, because seemingly in reply we had a measured, positive and realistic contribution from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). Indeed, I was fascinated to note that he appeared to be going against all the previous arguments that we have heard from Opposition Members on the subject of local council spending. Fascinatingly, he turned that on its head and is now a convert to the cause of efficiency, but efficiency achieved by "extra investment". Again, that is the simple answer, "Throw more money at the problem and it will disappear.
I was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman could not answer my intervention when I asked him to draw together his conversion to efficiency, his allegation about cuts and the fact that currently there is a significant increase in staffing in local government in Wales. I appreciate that I caught the right hon. Gentleman on the hop—

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman want the answer now?

Mr. Jones: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman must at least be aware that to cut 5,000 jobs in the Department of Health and Social Security the Government transferred responsibility for housing benefit and DHSS benefits to the local authorities. Therefore, the local authorities had to take on extra people to do the work. It was quite logical and inevitable.

Mr. Jones: I am afraid that once again the right hon. Gentleman has shot himself in the foot. He previously resorted to spurious claims about extra staffing for the community charge, but that is no justification for this current year, nor is there any need for any local council to employ any extra people or spend any extra money during

1988–89. He is now resorting to talking about history. I am talking about the current year and the extra staffing that is taking place at the moment.
My right hon. Friend made the point that, inevitably, Opposition Members will say that the settlement is not good enough. He could not have said a truer word. The stock approach that is always trotted out is that it is not enough. Even if the Opposition's demands are realised, the ultimate answer is that it is too little and too late.
Surely we have all come to curse the advent of the word processor, which churns out such stock answers one after the other. If we think more deeply about the matter, we note that local council expenditure has increased by 11 per cent. in real terms under this Government. The Opposition say that that is not enough, yet when they were in office it was even less. When that is related to the fact that under the previous Labour Administration local council spending in Wales fell in real terms by 4 per cent., their failure is compounded. Where is the admission from the Opposition? Where is the apology? But that is not a unique approach. There sit the representatives of the only Government ever to cut the Health Service. What answer do they have to that? They scream, "Cut, cut, cut, cut," in the hope that they will be believed, but they certainly will not be.
My right hon. Friend projected that rates should on average rise by no more than 1·3 per cent. if local councils follow through. I am not sure that I share his confidence if such is an authoritative prediction. Such a prediction would assume wise spending on all the important priorities of local councils. It would also assume a universal concern for the burden on the ratepayers.
The Labour group on Cardiff city council is already considering proposals for a double figure rates increase next April. Unfortunately, that will be approximately 10 times more than the projection mentioned by my right hon. Friend. In Cardiff we have an unbalanced council. I fear that the Labour group will be able to have its way on that exorbitant increase because it will be able to rely on its fellow Socialists in the LSD alliance, or whatever it will be called by that time.
Like the right hon. Member for Swansea, West I fear that that will be the case with many other councils in Wales. I advance just one reason for that. Next year will not be local election year. The local councils in Wales will not have to face the electorate and there will not be the same regard as in an election year.
I am afraid that I know the system all too well in Cardiff, because in the off years we have had peak increases of 26, 54, and 94·5 per cent. It is only because of the Government's success in reducing inflation that the last peak was as low as 26 per cent. However, sadly, that was about six times more than the going rate of inflation, when the previous peak of 94·5 per cent. was only about four times the growing rate of inflation.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's settlement. I congratulate him on what he has achieved in fighting his corner in Cabinet. We should all join him in imploring the local councils of Wales to follow through in achieving rate increases of no more than 1·3 per cent.

Mr. Paul Murphy: In the media release last week and his speech tonight, the Secretary of State said that the rate support grant settlement is fair, reasonable


and realistic. Indeed, he goes further than that. He refers to the Welsh local authorities as being better than their English or Scottish counterparts.
I only wish that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) felt the same way about the local authorities in Wales. I suspect that he does not, because the majority of those local authorities are Labour controlled and they are still reasonable authorities, much better than any Conservative examples, because they do not exist in the Principality of Wales.
What is certain is that the local authorities in Wales, and district councils in particular, have for the past few years kept their rates and expenditure at a reasonable level and have effectively achieved the unachievable— maintaining services at a good level while having to comply with the sort of restrictions that we have seen over the past few years from the various rate support grant settlements. Much good it has done them. Their reward, year by year—and again this year—in the rate support grant settlements has been a decrease in the amount of grant that they have received.
The aggregate rate support grant settlement for the whole of Wales has been reduced by about £5 million, but the effect on individual Welsh local authorities has been even more severe. Five years ago, when Lord Crickhowell was Secretary of State for Wales, 60 per cent. of Torfaen's expenditure was met by the rate support grant settlement. In 1988–89 it is below 50 per cent.
The rate support grant settlement is unrealistic because it does not take into account the impact of inflation on local authorities. Moreover, it does not take into account the fact that 54 per cent. of the budget of many local authorities in Wales is swallowed up by items over which they have no control. Last year there was a 10·7 per cent. pay increase for manual workers and an increase of nearly 9 per cent. for craftsmen, but this year's rate support grant settlement provided for an inflation rate of only 5 per cent.
The Secretary of State says that local authorities in Wales should be reasonable and that they should impose rate increases of less than 2 per cent., yet the committee for the Welsh district councils has said within the last few days that if services are to be maintained at their present standard many Welsh local authorities will have to impose rate increases of over 10 per cent. Most of those local authorities are valley authorities that suffer the greatest amount of deprivation in Wales. Their rates will have to be increased by that amount just to ensure that the services that are so vital to the people who live in those areas are maintained—not even improved, as they should be.
The Secretary of State says that rents will have to be increased by over 1·60 a week and that the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue accounts of district councils must be reduced. Many of the pensioners' schemes in the valley communities and elsewhere rely on that income. If the Secretary of State so desired, he could, at a stroke, change the face of Welsh housing, which needs to be changed a great deal. He could release the money that is lying in the coffers of local authorities. The Secretary of State could build new houses with those capital receipts and provide homes for the homeless. I asked a question a few weeks ago about the number of people in Wales who are waiting for houses, and I was told by the Under-Secretary of State that those figures are not kept. How can the Secretary of State know how many

houses are needed in Wales if he does not know how many people are waiting for houses? If the Secretary of State released that money for improvements and repairs, he would ease the burden on the housing revenue accounts, and rent increases would be unnecessary.
I was the chairman of my local authority's finance committee for eight years. The Conservative party was in office for seven of them. Throughout those seven years there was continuous underfunding of the services that are provided by Welsh local authorities. The rate support grant settlements are bedevilled by unfathomable figures and meaningless jargon. The poll tax will make no difference to what has happened in recent years. This rate support grant settlement is no credit to the Secretary of State for Wales. It sells Wales short.

Mr. Keith Raffan: The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made the point, although he may not have meant to, of the importance for local authorities to secure moderate wage increases. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have strayed onto the subject of home improvement grants, considering the last Labour Government's appalling to disgraceful record on that issue. In just one year of this Government we spent more on home improvements than the previous Labour Government did in the whole of their term of office.
As my right hon. Friend is aware, two of the local authorities covered in whole or in part by my constituency, Delyn borough council and Clwyd county council, lose out in the settlement as a result of changes in grant-related expenditure. On the other hand, Rhuddlan borough council, part of which is in my constituency, gains significantly. Clwyd county council loses out primarily because of a reduction in the number of further education students. I spoke this afternoon to the county treasurer, Mr. Dalby, and I shall be raising in writing on his behalf several detailed, complex points with my right hon. Friend. Delyn borough council also loses out because of data changes to do with lower capital allocations and a large European regional development fund grant, but the council's chief executive is aware of and appreciates the reasons why.
As my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, the debate is not just about this particular rate support grant settlement; it is also about local government in Wales and the efficiency and effectiveness of local government services. I am fortunate to represent in whole or in part two reasonably good to outstanding local authorities, Rhuddlan borough council and Delyn borough council. I only wish that Clwyd county council would emulate them.
I know that a certain hon. Gentleman—perhaps two as they are sitting together, the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), who represent parts of Clwyd — would agree strongly with that remark.

Mr. Martyn Jones: rose—

Mr. Raffan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Certainly the hon. Member for Wrexham in a previous rate support grant debate, went as far as to describe Clwyd county council as "rotten".

Mr. Martyn Jones: I remind the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) that Clwyd county council is run by a coalition of independents and Tories.

Mr. Raffan: We are well aware that the council is, sadly, run by its officers, it being a hung council. The hon. Member for Wrexham is nodding in agreement with me. Perhaps he can sort out the differences on the Opposition Benches; I hesitate to intrude in a family Labour party quarrel between the hon. Members for Wrexham and for Clwyd, South-West, but as they are sitting next to each other perhaps they can sort it out between themselves.
I wish to make three specific points on how the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of local government in Wales can he improved, using Clwyd as an example. First, in relation to manpower, all local authorities need to bear in mind the words of my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment who said in the debate yesterday that unemployment can only be tackled through the creation of new jobs in the wealth-creating sector of the economy. Local government is part not of the wealth-creating sector of the economy, but of the wealth-consuming sector.
Nothing has a more dramatic impact on current spending, and so on rate rises, than increases in local government manpower. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West will listen closely to my next point. Clwyd is to be commended for reducing the number of full-time employees by 734, or 8·2 per cent., between September 1979 and September this year, but the beneficial effect of that has been undermined by the parallel increase in part-time employees during the same period—up by 953 or 16·5 per cent. That has had the effect in full-time equivalent terms of diminishing the reduction in manpower to 327, or 2·9 per cent.
More can be done to reduce manpower. There is particular need for the Audit Commission to study more closely the duplication by, and overlap between, the activities of different tiers of local government. I believe that the Opposition are "unitarians" in local government terms, and presumably one of the reasons for that is their belief that there is overlap between the different tiers.
In Wales as a whole there has been an increase, however slight, in the number of full-time equivalent local authority staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) has said, in the second quarter of this year compared to the second quarter of last year. That continues the increase of recent years and is a cause for concern. To ensure maximum efficiency, there is a need for all local authorities closely to monitor and to control their staffing levels.
My second point relates to surplus school places. As at October this year, there were 11,235 surplus places in primary schools in Clwyd. The current number at secondary level is not available, but, as of last year, it was 4,075, and, because of falling rolls, the county council expects it to rise to 9,200 by 1990.
The cost of keeping 15,000 school places empty is £2·3 million, or nearly 5p on the rates. Removing even a fraction of them would produce substantial revenue savings that could be redeployed with great advantage elsewhere in the education budget. What is true of Clwyd is true of Wales as a whole. There are more than 125,000 surplus school places in the Principality.

Dr. John Marek: I am a little perplexed about the hon. Gentleman's comment about surplus school places. In my constituency, there are many classes with more than 30 children in them. Clearly there are reasons for that in rural and urban areas. Instead of talking about surplus places, why does not the hon.

Gentleman talk about cutting class sizes? I asked the same question of the Secretary of State. Why could he not, as a matter of policy, set a class size of no more than 26 pupils? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman answered his own question. There are urban primary schools in my constituency in which class sizes are even higher than 30. But if we remove some of the surplus places, particularly in rural areas, the money saved can be redeployed to reduce the size of cramped and overcrowded classes in certain primary schools. Redeploying money saved by removing surplus places is an excellent way in which that could be done.
As I said, what is true of Clwyd is true of Wales as a whole. There are over 125,000 surplus school places, costing nearly £20 million to keep empty.
My third and final point relates to the revenue implications of capital expenditure. Loan charges in Clwyd have risen from £324,000 in 1982–83 to £780,000 in 1987–88. Total loan charges over that five-year period have amounted to £3,683,000. Local authorities must restrict major capital projects to statutory obligations, otherwise statutory services will suffer severely.
I had hoped to get through my speech without mentioning Bodelwyddan castle. It was a challenge that I had set for myself. But as the matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), the House will not be surprised to hear that I express my disagreement with him. It is a wrong priority to spend £4·5 million on that project by 1991, with resultant loan charges, debt repayments and running and maintenance costs of over £500,000 a year. That could well be at the cost of 34 additional primary school teachers.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been unduly modest in describing this as a fair and reasonable settlement. Wales's share of the total grant for England and the Principality has steadily increased from 7·25 per cent. under Labour to 8·4 per cent. under the Conservative Government. Wales has done well again this year. My right hon. Friend has continued his predecessor's line record. The figures that he gave for local government expenditure in Wales, which has increased in real terms by £152 million, or 11 per cent. under this Government, is in stark contrast to the Opposition's record. The £56 million drop in local government expenditure in Wales under the last Labour Government — that 4 per cent. Drop —torpedoes the speech of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and all the sanctimonious utterances from the Opposition on local government expenditure.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I shall briefly address the issues and, in particular, the Secretary of State's remarks about the reasonable and fair settlement. Those of us who live in Wales know that it is not a reasonable and fair settlement.
We hear Conservative Members juggling the figures, but those of us who live in the valleys know the reality of local government and local government expenditure. We have schools that have not been painted for years. We have roads in a deplorable state. We have houses that desperately need improvement grants. I pay tribute to the Government for giving substantial amounts to improve houses in the valley communities. But why have they cut


that money? The number of houses in the Rhondda that need improvement grants is 18,000. So 18,000 pre-1919 houses in one constituency are waiting for improvement. The Secretary of State says that the figures are reasonable and fair but we look on that statement with scepticism.

Mr. Martyn Jones: The same position appertains in north Wales and in Clywd, which has already been discussed tonight. Clywd county council, through the Tory chairman of the social services committee, has asked for more money. He and a colleague voted with the Labour group because they felt that the social services were so badly stretched that danger point had been reached.

Mr. Rogers: I am sure that the position is the same in north and mid Wales as it is in the valley communities.
Perhaps the Secretary of State can answer some points when he replies. Are we to assume that all moneys for the valleys initiative are to be new and separate moneys and are not included in the grant? Will the Secretary of State make more money available for the reclamation of derelict land by local authorities apart from other money available elsewhere?
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) intervened earlier to draw out from the Secretary of State that Welsh local authorities received £104 per head in grant as opposed to £98 in England. I wish that the hon. Member would start scrapping for Wales and that he would be a little partial. Although he is a translated Londoner he should remember that he represents a Welsh constituency. He should start fighting for his Welsh constituents instead of intervening with such fatuous remarks.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: It is typical of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that he not only gets wrong what I said, but sees it as an insult to Wales. I was merely pointing out that, far from being hard done by, we are doing better in terms of public expenditure per head than local authorities in England. That is something of which we can be proud, because it means that the Secretary of State for Wales and his predecessors have fought hard to ensure that Wales gets a larger percentage of expenditure than England.
That is borne out by the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has given. Since 1981 the Welsh share of the total grant for England and Wales has risen from 7·4 per cent. to 8·3 per cent. and it will rise again in 1988–89 to 8·4 per cent. The reasons are clear. Local authorities in Wales have a better record on expenditure than England and Scotland, and that has been rewarded. Spending in Wales has risen by 11 per cent. more than inflation since 1979 compared with 17 per cent. in England. Rates in Wales have risen by about 15 per cent. more than the rise in the RPI in Wales, compared with over 48 per cent. in England since 1979. So we have a good record in Wales on local government expenditure. We can be proud of that. In addition, we get 66 per cent. in grant compared to 46 per cent. in England. That ought to be remembered.
Given the figures for the coming year, it should be possible for Dyfed county council to reduce its rates bill by 2·1 per cent., Preseli to reduce its rates by 2·6 per cent., and South Pembroke to cut its bill by 2·7 per cent. if they

follow the guidelines in the Government statement. I shall be looking, as I am sure all my constituents in those local authority areas will, to see that that happens.
There are some ominous signs in regard to Dyfed county council. In recent years it has constantly ignored Government guidelines; it put its rates up by 7 per cent. last year and by 19 per cent. the year before. I noticed in the local newspapers recently that the chief officers in Dyfed have been awarded quite substantial increases in pay. That has caused concern among local electors and throughout Pembrokeshire.
Out of the three old counties of Dyfed, South Pembroke provides the most rate income, yet we do not get a fair share of the services that are provided by Dyfed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) shares the concern in Pembrokeshire about the number of county council services that are being drawn towards the centre, in Carmarthen, to the detriment of his constituents and mine. If the county council is anxious that support is given to everyone in the county it does not do much good to start centralising services in the area represented by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) where unemployment is only 6 per cent. compared to levels of 24 per cent. in Fishguard and 17 per cent. in my constituency. If the county council is contemplating any further centralising moves, I hope that it will consider the effect of such moves on local unemployment.
I believe that the present settlement is good for education. The RSG provision for education in 1988–89 will be £830 million, which is 8.7 per cent. higher than the revised provision for the current year, which in turn, was 17 per cent. higher than the final settlement for 1986–87. Therefore, since 1979–80 educational expenditure in real terms, has increased by 22 per cent. in the primary sector and by 31 per cent. in the secondary sector. That illustrates the Government's commitment to ensuring that we get the best education for the children whom we represent.
The current expenditure of local authorities on the maintenance of school buildings has risen from the 1978–79 level of £53·85 per pupil at constant prices, to £60·5 per pupil in the current financial year. That demonstrates the Government concern to do something about the old primary schools and some of the older secondary schools in Wales that need repair.
We should also consider the provision of money for the local education authorities training grant schemes. In the current year the provision is £11·86 million and it will increase to £12·28 million. However, I am sure that all hon. Members are worried that Her Majesty's inspectors recent report on in-service training in Wales, showed that there were serious deficiencies in the way in which some of the money had been spent. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will consider carefully how that money is spent in the coming year so that the recommendations of the HMI report are adhered to and we get the best value for the £12 million that will be spent.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The reward that has been handed out to the Welsh local authorities will not be welcomed in Newport. If this settlement is judged a reward by the Government, I am sure that the Newport authority would prefer to be punished.
When the Government figures were first introduced I asked what the settlement would be for Newport. I gave


precise figures and asked for them to be confirmed, but I received no answer. Let us consider what the settlement will mean for that authority. As a result of essential increases following the wage negotiations relating to the teachers' strike and capital expenditure—most of it in Newport—on job creation and encouraging new work, it has been estimated that, to stand still and cope with inflation Newport expenditure must increase by 7·5 per cent. That is the figure that has been given by the authority's treasurer.
We have heard about various figures—4·3 per cent. and 5·63 per cent.—but Newport has fared badly. Over a long period this council has been acknowledged by all parties to be efficient and to be providing good value and cost-effective services. However, Newport has not done well and its reward is a princely increase of 1·9 per cent. compared to last year's settlement. As a result, there must be a rates increase of 9·3 per cent. if the council is to keep up with inflation, but if it seeks to continue its valuable work on job creation and capital schemes the district rate must increase by 10 per cent. The Secretary of State must acknowledge that. We have heard many fine words, but what is this? Is it a confidence trick? We have heard the fine promises, but now we see the reality.
I should, perhaps, have started with a word of croeso to the Government Front Bench. We have had some eight hours of debate in this black December for local authorities in Wales, and tonight the awful, destructive Local Government Bill was finalised. To its eternal shame, the Welsh Office Front Bench put in not a single appearance during the past two days. Even more remarkable has been the characteristic caricature of tabloid press-type local government from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). It is a myth and a fiction. Throughout the 100 hours in Committee, we asked time and again for examples of free-spending authorities in Wales—all those authorities for which the Government had to bring in the weapon of the Local Government Bill. That extra bureaucracy and expense, that wholly alien and malicious irrelevance to Wales, will be used to punish the authorities. Again and again I have asked questions, and the Minister has not uttered a single word during all those hundred hours. It must be a record for a Minister to have stayed mute for a hundred hours without earning his salary.
The Bill and the poll tax legislation that is coming this week are wholly irrelevant to Wales. This is a bad day for local government and for Wales. We are witnessing the schizophrenia of the Welsh Office. We have heard fine words and double talk from the Secretary of State. We have seen the double think and tonight we have the double cross.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The Secretary of State talked about the valley initiatives. I am pleased to hear of any initiatives, provided that they represent additional resources given to Wales to deal with the many problems facing those valley communities. However, I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind that there are special problems in the rural parts of Wales. Following his initiative for the valleys, we would like to welcome the Secretary of State to the rural areas of Gwynedd and Powys, to see the real deprivation in those parts and the

hidden problem of rural depopulation. We are losing so many young people because of the lack of proper facilities, services and job opportunities.
Has the Secretary of State allocated resources for implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in Wales, which will cost between £7 million and £10 million? Has that been included in the formula for this year? The people of Wales will be extremely disappointed and angry if, yet again, provision has not been made for the implementation of that important Act.
Has provision been made in this year's grant for the considerable extra expenditure that many local authorities will incur as a result of this year's severe flooding in Wales —both for the immediate and long-term problems that the flooding highlighted? Much structural work will have to be done to provide proper facilities to ensure that such flooding does not happen again.
I want to make a special plea on behalf of the social services budgets of local authorities—especially for the concept of care in the community. The pressure on health authorities as a result of cuts in their budgets has a knock-on effect on social services departments. In Gwynedd, for example, cuts in the health authority budget will mean that there will be fewer beds for the elderly, in the acute, rehabilitation and long-stay sectors. That will inevitably mean that more people will have to be cared for in their homes. It must be remembered that 18·5 per cent. of Gwynedd's population are aged 65 or over and that 8·2 per cent. are over the age of 75. That is higher than the national average. This will increase demands on the social services and mean that we will need more social workers and more home carers. This year Gwynedd has seen a real cut in provision for social services and home carers. The Secretary of State should bear that in mind. Perhaps when he is winding up the debate he will tell us whether that has been taken into account.
My final point is about local authority smallholdings. I should like to see local authorities being given allocations to ensure that they have more starter farms. The important first step for many young people entering agriculture is the small farm, the smallholding, and I ask the Secretary of State whether that sort of allocation could be made available to local authorities.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The Secretary of State has again proclaimed that the settlement is fair and realistic. That argument has been rebutted by the Opposition on numerous occasions. Our county councils think that the settlement is neither fair nor realistic, and they are at the sharp end of affairs in local government.
It has been said many times that charity begins at home. I know that because of various pay awards Gwent county council has been under considerable financial strain. The teachers were awarded 16 per cent. overall, but the first full year of that settlement is next year. The money has to be found because teachers, who perform such a worthwhile task in our society, have fallen well behind in the pay league. We can add to that settlement the pay award for manual workers. It was 12 per cent. and took effect from July. Administrative staff and the police and fire brigade received 7 per cent. That took Gwent's inflation rate to 11 per cent. However, the rate support grant settlement to our counties is only 6·3 per cent. and that includes what is known as the special allocation. Yet again, the Welsh


counties are being unfairly penalised, not because they have been extravagantly spending taxpayers' money, but because of national pay awards and the Government's mean and shortsighted approach to local government affairs.
The public expenditure levels of the Welsh Office do not keep up with the inflation rate faced by our county councils. What is more, this rate support grant settlement does not make adequate provision for the services that the councils have to provide, including roads, schools and social services. The picture is equally dismal when we consider the district authorities in Wales. I can best illustrate that by citing the case of Newport which has already been lucidly brought out by hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
Newport's grant-related expenditure assessment—the Government's own assessment of what authorities should spend to provide a standard level of service— has increased by only 1·9 per cent. compared with last year. That was the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West and is well below the general level of pay and price inflation. If the Newport authority were to maintain services at their existing level for next year and meet the costs from the capital expenditure programme, it would face an increase in expenditure of between 9 and 10 per cent.—much higher than the 4·8 per cent. allowed in the statement and much higher than the increase in Newport's grant-related expenditure assessment.
I turn to the tragedy of Welsh housing. I read this week that 200 families per week are becoming homeless in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) pointed out that it is time for the Government to release the assets from the sale of council houses, because we badly need a massive housing drive in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out that no less than £750 million in rate support grants has been withheld from local authorities over the past eight years. This is a deflationary packet if ever there were one. Is it any wonder that the Government, in their submission to the EEC 12 months ago, pointed out that Wales had the lowest economic activity rate in the whole of Britain?
The Government continue to rob Wales. Following the appointment of a new Secretary of State, we thought that there might be some improvement, but we have found that the leopard has not changed its spots. Is it any wonder that the number of Conservative Members in Wales has been reduced to a rump and that they could not even produce a Secretary of State out of their own ranks?

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will be delighted that Mr. Speaker made the decision to open the Galleries, so that the people of Wales could flock in such considerable numbers to hear the various contributions of Opposition Members.
I start by answering the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who compared what he said was the 5·3 per cent. increase in Wales with the 7·4 per cent. increase in England. I am afraid that he is not comparing two similar figures. One figure applies to the increase in budgets, while the other provides for the increase in provision. If he wishes me to give the comparison with the 5–3 per cent., I am glad to say that

the English figure is 3·9 per cent., not the 7·4 per cent. that he suggested. He asked me to correct him, and I am delighted to do so. I am sure he will be satisfied that his figures have been corrected in that way.
I have also been asked to compare the figures of what has happened in various years under various Governments, and I am willing to do that. The whole tone of the debate from Opposition Members has been, "We think the rate support grant is not big enough; that local government expenditure should be bigger," and they are condemning the Government for not achieving those objectives. The simple comparison is that in the lifetime of this Government we have increased local government expenditure in Wales in real terms by 11 per cent., whereas the Labour Government decreased local government expenditure in real terms by 4 per cent.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: When the right hon. Gentleman says an increase "in real terms", will he tell the House whether he means an increase above the retail prices index, because we know that local government does not buy the same basket of goods as the retail customer.

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say that the position is worse than the retail prices index, he must be ashamed that, under a Labour Government, it went down by 4 per cent. If he is suggesting that the grant should be increased by more than the rate of inflation, he must remember that the figure went down under a Labour Government. Perhaps he would like to have the figures for the rate support grant for the last years of the Labour Government of which he is such a keen supporter. In 1976–77 it was £585 million, in 1977–78 it was £535 million, and in 1978–79 it went down to £512 million. That was the result of action by a Government supported by Opposition Members who now complain about poverty, bad housing and terrible conditions in Wales and say that more should be done for Wales. Opposition Members sat there supporting a Government who reduced local government expenditure and the rate support grant. They now have the audacity to condemn us for not increasing it enough.
The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred to housing. Has he no feeling of shame about the last Labour Government's unbelievably bad record on house improvement? Is he not delighted that we are increasing grants for housing improvements by a further £7·5 million? Anyone who knows the problems of housing in the valleys and in Wales generally knows the desperate need for a substantial house improvement campaign. The comparative figures are remarkable. This Government have been spending £92 million a year on house improvement. The Labour Government spent not £92 million, but £29 million, on house improvements. These are the people who describe their passion for good housing and who have the audacity to complain that more is not being done on housing. In every respect, the figures in this rate support grant are better than those granted to England. Out of £1,800 per household expenditure, only £300 will come out of the domestic rating system. It is a generous settlement. It is one—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,


That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1988–89 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (WALES)

Resolved,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 158), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1985–86 (House of Commons Paper No. 159), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Liaison Committee

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Sir Antony Buck, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Frank Field, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Mr. David Howell, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Ron Leighton, Sir Ian Lloyd, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Michael Mates, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Kenneth Warren, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. Jerry Wiggin be members of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr.Lightbown.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — RAF Carlisle (Staff Transfer)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I apologise for keeping the House up even longer. The important matter that I bring to the attention of the House concerns the proposed transfer of the RAF unit DDSM 15 from RAF Carlisle to Harrogate. Although the unit is outside my constituency—it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—many of the 70 employees whose jobs will disappear are my constituents and they have asked me to make representations on their behalf. I understand that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has received similar representations and wishes to speak in the debate. I welcome his support.
The work carried out by DDSM 15 consists of ordering and purchasing all the necessary spare parts for the American-built aircraft in service with the RAF. That represents 30 per cent. of all the aircraft in service with the RAF and that figure will soon be increased by the Government's decision to order AWACS. Therefore, the decision is vital to the people in my area, and it is also 'vital that we do not take a decision that may he detrimental to the country's defences.
I want to examine why the unit was placed at Carlisle in the first place. The decision was taken during the 1960s to disperse jobs to areas of high unemployment. The number of unemployed people in my constituency then was half what it is today. When unemployment has doubled in my constituency why in 1987, are we talking about transferring jobs that were brought to the area to reduce unemployment in the first place? It is bad enough that we are talking about it.
There could be some obscure logic in the proposal it' the Government wanted to transfer the jobs to an area of even higher unemployment. I hope that the Minister is listening to me. The official unemployment rate in my constituency is 10·3 per cent., although I could argue that the real figure is 13 per cent. The jobs are intended to be transferred to Harrogate which is one of the few bright spots for employment in the north of England. Unemployment in that area is at the relatively low level of 6·1 per cent.
No wonder that my constituents and the people in the surrounding area feel very aggrieved at the Government's decision to take away job opportunities and send them to what my constituents consider to be a much more prosperous area.
This is not the first time that the Government have considered these proposals. They were considered twice before. As a result of their need to build empires over the years, civil servants have tried to implement the transfer to Harrogate. The first occasion was in 1974 when my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was the Minister responsible. I have spoken to him and he said that he remembers the case well. There was no justification at the time for the transfers and it was simply a matter of the civil servants wanting everything under one roof. It was also considered by the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) when he was the Minister responsible. Although the right hon. Gentleman cannot recall the matter, I have no doubt that the reason why the proposal was turned down on that occasion was the same:


there was no justification for it. The proposal has been turned down by a Labour Government and a Conservative Government.
When I went to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is the Minister responsible for the proposal, early in November I was concerned to discover that within a week of his taking the decision he was not aware that the proposal had been reviewed by the Conservative Government in 1979. In fact, I had to tell him what had happened. I am worried about how well the Minister was briefed before he was prepared to take the decision.
I want to consider the consultants' report produced by Peat Marwick McLintock on whose recommendations the Minister is acting. I also want to comment on the letter from the Minister announcing the decision about the transfer. After spending 20 years in industry and 15 years in local government, I have seen many management consultant documents. They were not on the same subject, but the format was the same. The recommendations are usually very scientific. On odd occasions I have witnessed the decisions and comments based on unscientific generalisations and statements similar to those made in this case. Normally statements are not backed up by facts because the clients have insisted that the decision is going ahead. I cannot see why a reputable company such as Peat Marwick McLintock, which considered DDSM 15, should produce such proposals. Indeed, page 19 of the study states:
Our study shows there is no significant cost advantages in moving DDSM 15 to Harrogate, the justification is in the non quantifiable benefits.
It does not refer to any cost benefits. Indeed, if a report such as that went to the board of any major company—I am thinking of a famous supermarket chain—it would go straight into the waste bin because it contains no facts.
The report says there could be staff reductions of 20 if the transfer goes ahead, but at no point does it say where those job savings would be made. It then says that the transfer could cost £585,000, but that does not take into account the heavy costs involved in early retirement payments that would have to be made before redundancy could be offered.
In his letter of 19 November, the Minister takes up the theme of financial savings through a reduction of 20 jobs, but says that the transfer costs would not be £585,000 as suggested by the consultants but the much lower figure of £335,000. In fact, the proposed transfer would increase the numbers employed at the unit, according to the consultants, who say
A requirement to accommodate 75 DDSM 15 staff at Harrogate could, under the worst assumption, result in additional accommodation.
The Minister, however, wrote saying:
DDSM 15 represents some 70 of the 1,100 staff employed at RAF Carlisle.
In fact, the figure of 1,100 is wrong because it should be 980. But I agree with the figure of 70. That number are employed at Carlisle. In other words, if they go to Harrogate, according to the consultants, there will be 75 staff. So if there are 70 now and there will be 75, that is not a saving of 20 staff but an increase of five. In other words, the report is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense.
At present the unit is satisfactorily accommodated at RAF Carlisle. That will be abandoned, even though it is

a good building. The consultants talk about additional temporary or semi-permanent accommodation. I think I see the Minister shaking his head in dissent. I assure him that that is what the report claims. The consultants also say that a new office block will be required in the 1990s, and we are only three years away from the 1990s.
The Minister claims in his letter that there will be no loss of efficiency during the transfer period. In fact, the unit at Carlisle is more efficient now than the unit at Harrogate. The sum of the experience of the people employed at Carlisle amounts to 250 years, much of which will be lost when they refuse to transfer.
The people employed at the unit in Carlisle are not dealing with civil servants in other parts of the country. They deal in the main with representatives of American aircraft companies. Those personal contacts are vital, and if they are lost the efficiency and ability of the unit to respond will be lost, and that must, for two years, affect the efficiency of the RAF.
The Minister then talks about a problem of communications. If that was not a problem in 1974, when the matter was reviewed, and it was not a problem in 1979, when it was reviewed again, why now, when we have all the electronic technology at our disposal and better roads, should it be a problem? Much play is made about the 100 miles between Harrogate and Carlisle, but the main communications in this case are between this country and America. Communications between DDSM 15 and suppliers in the USA span a distance of up to 5,000 miles, so why is there such a major problem with a distance of only 100 miles?
I am sure that the Minister will reconsider the matter. When he does so, he will decide, like his predecessors, that there is no moral reason for the transfer. Is it not immoral to take jobs away from an area that has over 10 per cent. unemployment and give them to another area that has 6 per cent. unemployment? Further, to say that that is being done on the grounds of efficiency, with no care for the effects that it will have on the community, is also immoral.
No financial saving will be made because, as the report says, five extra staff will be employed. Extra costs will be incurred for accommodation. There is no defence reason for the transfer because it will weaken, for up to two years, the RAF's ability to respond.
The Minister should come to the same conclusion as the two previous Ministers. They were wise men — it is a seasonable time of the year—and if the Minister takes this decision he could become the third wise man. If he does not, my constituents will think that he is one of the brass monkeys.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the decision that has been made is wrong and that he will let the people of DDSM 15 get on with doing the job for which they received commendations from the Government during the Falklands war.

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) obtained this debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to say something on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), in whose constituency the RAF unit lies.
I have grave concern about the employees affected by this decision, grave concern about the efficiency of supplies to the RAF of United States' aircraft spares


subsequent to this operation, and grave concern that the Peat Marwick McLintock report does not justify the upheaval. I doubt whether savings will be made if the transfer takes place, and the hon. Member for Carlisle highlighted some of the problems.
I read the executive summary of the consultants' report, and paragraph 46 says that there will be no cost savings. Volume 1, paragraph 9 of the more detailed report says that the move cannot he justified on cost saving factors. Such cost saving factors seem to be the basis of my hon. Friend's decision. Paragraph 45 casts grave aspersions on accommodation at Harrogate.
The hon. Member for Carlisle highlighted the statement in the report that in the 1990s it is likely that the Government will have to purchase or construct accommodation in the Harrogate area. There are doubts about the availability of married quarters, and the report comments on the present layout of the site at Harrogate.
The move from Carlisle, where there is space and accommodation, does not seem to be a step towards practical efficiency. It needs much imagination to believe that a possible saving of £250,000 per year can be made in this new, expensive purchase or building programme.
My hon. Friend is hard pushed to justify the move, and particularly to bring into consideration the distance of 100 miles between Carlisle and Harrogate. Everybody knows that it is only about two hours away by road. Surely with the communications that the hon. Member for Carlisle mentioned, a distance of 100 miles should not come into the argument. It is much more important that we look at what will happen to the people involved.
My constituency of Dumfries is just north of the border and of the RAF maintenance unit. We do not have an RAF station or an Army depot. The Ministry of Defence is entirely absent except for an outstation and the CAD Longtown station at Eastriggs. However, the loss of any Ministry of Defence jobs is significant and serious. We have suffered two blows in recent months—the DDSM 15 decision that we are discussing and the Royal Ordnance decision to close the factory at Powfoot in the middle of my constituency. It is a double blow to lose 200 jobs in an area of high unemployment when we are looking to the Ministry of Defence to help provide jobs. It is unacceptable that that should happen.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Ayr (Mr. Younger), as Secretaries of State for Defence, have both highlighted the importance of keeping jobs in the north, which is an area of high unemployment, but now we are to lose jobs to an area of much lower unemployment which is further south.
My hon. Friend the Minister has been good enough to see my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, the hon. Member for Carlisle and me. We have read the Peat Marwick McLintock report, and the case for going to Harrogate is not cast-iron. Too many questions remain unanswered and the report contains too many uncosted suggestions, especially about accommodation. I forecast that there will not be a manpower saving but that we shall have a redistribution of the labour force from Carlisle to Harrogate and nothing towards the efficiency of the unit. As we know, the arrival of the AWACS aircraft in a year or two will add enormously to the amount of spares that will need to be carried at Carlisle. I note from my hon. Friend's letter to Members of Parliament, dated 19 November, that that will not begin until 1989, so my hon. Friend has time to reconsider.
In total 70 jobs are involved. My hon. Friend hopes that 20 will be transferred; 24 people are to be made redundant and 26 jobs have a question mark against them. Are they to be lost through natural wastage? What is to happen to the 26 that are not accounted for? Surely, if the move is to take place — I press upon my hon. Friend that it should not happen and that he should change his decision— can he not ensure that the 50 people who might lose their jobs at the maintenance unit at Carlisle are guaranteed jobs in other parts of that large RAF station or at the CAD Longtown station nearby or elsewhere in Ministry of Defence employment in the area?
It is unacceptable to me that many of my constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and those of the hon. Member for Carlisle should lose their jobs under these circumstances. I ask my hon. Friend to look again because there will be a knock-on effect. What will happen the the MT section or to the signal section. It is really a case of people mattering. The people who will lose their jobs really do matter. I do not think that the Ministry of Defence has considered the constituents of the three Members of Parliament who are present tonight and who are concerned about the future. I ask my hon. Friend to think again and reverse his decision.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) for raising this matter this evening, because the debate gives me the opportunity to explain to the House how my Department is dealing with a matter which is understandably of great concern to the hon. Member for Carlisle and to my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). They have all taken a close interest in this matter and I understand why, because it is of concern to their constituents. The issue is one on which we have to find a proper balance between improving value for money in the use of defence resources and responding to the legitimate concerns of our staff.
The theme of value for money is central to the Government's approach to the defence budget. We apply it in defence procurement, as we set out in 1983 in an open Government document, through a more commercial approach, greater use of competition at all levels and a broadening of our base of suppliers. We apply it in support, supply and maintenance services by the use of contracting out, privatisation and partnership with private enterprise. We apply it, too, in the management of the Department. The key to success is changing attitudes and developing our management practices. I am sure that the hon. Member for Carlisle will understand that from his own management experience.
I acknowledge gladly the quality of the staff throughout the Department and it is the responsibility of Ministers and senior management to give the staff the best opportunity to get their jobs done as effectively as possible.
There are three particular points which I should make clear from the outset. The first is that the proposal to transfer work from Carlisle to Harrogate does not in any way cast doubt on the motivation or performance of the present staff at Carlisle. It arises simply for reasons of


efficiency and value for money which are outside their control because they relate to the whole organisation of which they at Carlisle are a part.
Secondly, the proposal that we are debating tonight relates not to the depot—No. 14 maintenance unit—at RAF Carlisle, but only to the group of supply management staff in the Royal Air Force department who are currently based at the station.
Thirdly, I have not yet taken any final decision on the proposal, because, in accordance with our normal practice, we are consulting the trade union representatives of the staff concerned about it. I can assure hon. Members that we take those consultations very seriously, and their outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion. The trade union side has asked that the period of consultation be extended so that it can consider its position at a meeting to be held at Carlisle on 14 January. Though we have been happy to accede to that request, it means that I shall not be in a position to reach a final conclusion before the end of January at the earliest.
Let me briefly explain in the time that is available some of the background to the issue that we are debating. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to the function of DDSM 15 and the fact that it is based at Carlisle, whereas the rest of the supply management organisation is based at Harrogate.

Mr. Martlew: What will happen to the unit that looks after the Tornado?

Mr. Sainsbury: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Martlew: Is it not the fact that it is being left as it is and is not being brought into the Harrogate unit?

Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot reply at this moment about the unit to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. One complication is that we have 11 deputy directorates with more numbers attached to them.
The basic point about the directorate being at Carlisle was originally that they should be located alongside the items for which they were responsible. The RAF supply organisation deals with about 1·7 million separate items of equipment, including complete ranges of items— for example, aircraft spares. The staff at Carlisle are responsible for about 200,000 of those items, most of which are stored at the maintenance unit at Carlisle. However, many other commodities at Carlisle are dealt with by the staff at Harrogate.
The staff group at Carlisle was set up in the 1960s to source equipment which was to be stored at that unit. At that time, RAF provisioning activity relied heavily on local depot records, so it made sense to put the provisioning staff next to the depot where the stores were kept. In recent years, depot records have become less important as the emphasis has switched to central computer control, and the need to have provisioning staff alongside the depot has largely disappeared. Indeed, the provisioning staff who were based at another depot were transferred to Harrogate some years ago.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the transfer is not a new idea. It has been considered on several occasions in the past. What is new in the present situation is that the proposed transfer needs to be seen as part of a much wider

reorganisation of RAF supply management, which is being undertaken following a six-month study by a firm of consultants. The object of that reorganisation is to seek better value for money from the RAF provisioning system as a whole. The size of the benefits that we can achieve through this process will be apparent when I say that we estimate that each improvement of 1 per cent. in the efficiency of the purchasing process will save us at least £10 million per annum.
Clearly, if savings of this magnitude are available, we must do all we can to achieve them. The clear advice we have from the consultants— and it is advice which I would endorse from my own commercial experience—is that the move of DDSM 15 (RAF) to Harrogate, and its fuller integration into the supply management organisation as a whole, has to be seen as an integral part of that process.
There has been some misunderstanding about the nature of the consultants' recommendations. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and the hon. Member for Carlisle referred to that point. In the course of their study, the consultants had neither the time nor the facilities to produce fully validated costings of every aspect of their proposals for the entire RAF supply management organisation. On the information which was available to them, they believed that the proposed transfer was justifiable on wider management rather than direct cost grounds. We have since been able to look at the proposal in more detail and, as I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and to the hon. Member for Carlisle, we firmly believe that it will provide significant cost savings as well.
From our developing understanding of the changes required in the RAF supply management organisation, we now know that integration of the DDSM 15 (RAF) staff into the rest of the organisation at Harrogate would allow us to save some 20 service and civilian posts in the organisation as a whole. We therefore estimate that the total annual saving in staff costs will be about £250,000. Obviously, the costs of the move cannot be fully assessed until we know the intentions of the staff at Carlisle, but we have estimated the total cost of the move to be, on pessimistic assumptions, about £335,000—not the larger cost assumed by the consultants, who assumed that there would be far more redundancies.
It would therefore seem that, leaving aside the important contribution it would make to the wider management benefits that I have mentioned, the move is worth while in itself. As to the timing of the move, this is expected to take place during 1989. The actual timetable will be decided over the next few months when we have a clearer idea of the numbers who are likely to move with the work.
Although, as I have said, the financial and organisational benefits of the proposed move are substantial, we are following our usual procedures for consultation with the trade unions, and their views will, as always, be given the most careful consideration. If, following the period of consultations with the trade unions, I decide that the move should proceed, we shall be taking steps to discover the preferences of individual members of staff. Of the 62 civilian staff affected by the transfer, eight are in the higher executive officer and executive officer grades, and a mobility obligation forms part of their terms of service.
We would also try, so far as possible, to meet the preferences of the 54 staff who do not have any mobility obligation. We understand informally that some members of this group have already indicated an interest in a possible transfer. That is not entirely surprising, because a much wider range of career opportunities is open to these staff at Harrogate than at Carlisle. For those who are unable or unwilling to transfer, we shall be putting into effect the normal arrangements to ensure that they have the opportunity to apply for any Civil Service posts that become vacant in the Carlisle area and at Longtown. We shall also be controlling recruitment to the relevant grades at both Carlisle and Harrogate.
If, in the event, redundancies were to become necessary, we should certainly look for volunteers in the first instance. We have made it clear that these arrangements would extend to all the staff in the relevant grades at RAF Carlisle, not just to those who happen to be working in DDSM 15 (RAF) at the moment, so as to ensure that the

effects of the change would be absorbed in as large a staff group as possible. I hope and believe that, through this range of measures, we would keep the number of compulsory redundancies to the absolute minimum.
In sum, we see very significant advantages in the proposed transfer. We also recognise the legitimate interests of those of our staff who are affected by this proposal, but, in the circumstances I have described, we do not feel that those interests outweigh the benefits of proceeding with the move. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of the discussions that we are due to have with the trade unions, and I shall not be able to make a final decision on those matters until those discussions are complete. In reaching my decision, I am naturally quite willing to consider the points that have been raised this evening and any further representations that hon. Members may wish to make.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.